Misunderstanding on Karl Marxs works and ideologies - Essay Example

Yilmaz Yigit Tokman J.Dueck WR 20 2/21/11 Thin Line between Two Icons George Ritzer, of the book “Sociological Theory”, explores the concern about the existing misunderstanding on Karl Marx’s works and ideologies. Ritzer mentioned that Marx’s theories need thorough analysis again with a new spirit, not only for better understanding, but also for better recognition of the roots of these theories. Ritzer asserts the fact that the problem of misinterpretation of these existing sociological theories stems not from illiteracy, but from over-analysis by Marx’s advocates and critics, thereby revolutionizing these ideas from being theories to being axioms whose origins are lost.

As Ritzer states, “Marx seems to be forgotten not because Marx’s thought and the methods he introduced have been abandoned, but rather because they have become so axiomatic that their origin is no longer remembered” (129). It is a personal belief that enjoying the fruits of an unrecognized tree could result to people cutting down the tree upon sight, not because they do not appreciate it, but because they are not acquainted with it and they believe that the purpose of cutting it down is more important than the tree itself.

It is the aim of this paper to study how Marx’s theories and the reactions towards it are commonly applicable to minor life’s details. This paper will evaluate the connection between these sociological ideas and reactions to one of the most exciting experiences I had this year. It was January 21 of this year and I was watching my first NBA game ever --- a match between Boston Celtics and Utah Jazz. Seated close to the courtside among Celtics fans, I was exposed to hardcore Celtics fever and the true colors of a basketball match.

As I swept my gaze from the farther seats to around the bleachers, I was amazed at the massive scenery and the exhilarating experience it gave me. There were lots of yelling and screaming from the crowd, and the smell of cheap beer permeated the air. Even the green motif added to the adrenalin rush that everyone seemed to experience that moment. Few minutes inside the arena already made me want to covet the over-the-top Celtics fanaticism too. Everyone kept uttering words and phrases that would normally earn dirty looks from friends and reprimands from parents.

Sports mean competition and sometimes cheering for a team can be very satisfying for people. The Celtics fans did cheer for their team; however, they also criticized the players for their wrongdoings. Ritzer states that Marx is “often criticized, as well as praised by people who have never actually read his work.” (129) That said, claps and cheers praised Celtics when they score, and yells criticized them when they miss one, without people realizing that missing points is essential in adding excitement to the game.

Even youngsters who do not even realize why or exactly what they are cheering for, displayed actions similar to those who criticize Marx without ever having read his works. Ritzer also states, “Of course, the differing interpretations have political consequences, making any disagreement extremely contentious” (129). This can be similar to a debate on this certain game or specifically on Celtics. Every move, shot, miss, rebound, and foul, a player made resulted in thousands of different interpretations; meaning when a thesis and antithesis result in synthesis, there will always be an anti-synthesis.

This anti-synthesis would again go through the similar process of having a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Basketball game opinions and debates have similarities with the many different, sometimes contradicting, interpretations of Marx’s theories. This is true not only in basketball, but in several life situations that are too common, they sometimes are overlooked. Additionally, Ritzer’s statement saying, “whatever interpretation one makes of Marx, others can offer alternative interpretations” (129) is similar too to Celtics and Boston fans having differing opinions on the players, the game, and even basketball in general.

The use of Ritzer’s essay was mainly to comment not on Marx’s works, but how people comment and interpret them falsely. It is atypical to write such commentary on the comments about Marx’s works without even looking at the foundation of such theories. Ritzer is on point about the illiteracy and biases many people convey towards Marx. Marx is often portrayed as a devilish, dimwit for his works; and his theories are often thought of as destructive and inapplicable. Still, no matter how Marx contributed to the world and its views on society, Ritzer’s main aim in his article is to show the importance of Marx’s works and the need for people to look into the basis of Marx’s ideas.

The commentary on Marx is relevant to the Celtics game in terms of critics, interpretations, debates and its supporters. Both Celtics and Marx share the same fate; since there are people who either despise or support them vigorously. In Ritzer’s words “For many, Marx has become more of an icon than a thinker deserving of serious study. The symbolism of his name tends to muddle our understanding of his ideas.” (128) If people can only see that differing opinions are necessary is society, and that this fact is existent not only in this particular NBA game but in almost every situation in our daily lives, then one would realize that Marx’s theories are not at all destructive or inapplicable in this modern day and age.

In addition, just as it is essential for people to understand this fact, it is also necessary for people to know the basis of this concept for a more insightful understanding. Just like eating, which is necessary in sustaining life, if people know mechanism behind feelings of hunger and how the neurotransmitters of the brain send messages from receptors of stimuli, and then people would be better able to react accordingly to such feelings of hunger, and probably even differentiate it from mere cravings.

Work Cited Ritzer, George. Sociological Theory.