Marxist Perspective - Assignment Example

Marxist Perspective Marxism as a philosophy of human nature stresses the centrality of work in the creation of human nature itself and human self-understanding. (Encyclopaedia of Philosophy). Marxism is thought to be the theory and practice related to the liberation and self-emancipation of the working class. It is also thought to be synonymous to Socialism, though these two vary from one another. Dictionary of Social Science defines Marxism as the economic and political theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hold that human actions and institutions are economically determined and that class struggle is needed to create historical change and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded. (Word Reference.com). Methodology of Marxism: As Marxism is based on conflict theory articulated by Karl Marx, and it is interested in the conflict existing between different social classes in a society, 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 in which the classes interact. Dr. Murphy views that lack of class conflict in any society is not only eccentric, but also it deserves special attention to study and manipulate. Also, Marxism examines both hidden and explicit conflicts existing. In his words: When a political order based on class is found which seems to lack class conflict, special attention is paid. Marxism is particularly suited to ferreting out the hidden resistance present in religion and ideology. Marxism is of course dedicated to examining the modes of production present in any society, and there may be more than one present. The dialectical method is also an important concept in Marxism, which is built on the examination of contradictions between classes, ideas, etc. Further, Marxist perspective is exercised to observe the progress of various societies at different extents. There are more than one unifying methods used in Marxism, and it is not confined to one single visions. The theories of Marxism are based on a scientific method of thought which is called “dialectal materialism”. Dialectical materialism is defined as the Marxian interpretation of reality that views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements. Conflict has been the main subject of Marxism, and all the perspective revolves around this concept. Conflict is not only hidden or internal; rather, it may be explicit or external. It is dialectic materialism that turns the conflict winning central place in Marxian theory. The role of dialectic, Bourne states, is in analyzing the relationship between two opposite forces. (2006). It makes conflict innermost theme of the dialectical relationship, and social class conflict that leads to social change. This, according to him, is the basis of Marxian theorizing, though it is more complicated than this simple and faceless explanation. Marxist perspective has been named after and is based upon Marx’s political and economic theories. The several social theories that emphasize social conflict, according to Ryanzanskaya, have roots in the ideas of Karl Marx. (1971). The Marxist conflict approach emphasizes a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical method of analysis, a critical stance toward existing social arrangements, and a political programme of revolution or, at least, reform. (Theda, 1980). Lewis Alfred Coser, famous social theorist and critical analyst of contemporary times, has analyzed Marx’s Theory of Social Class in his book “Masters of Sociological Thought” (1977). The main focus of Marxism, according to him, is the analysis of social class, class structures and changes in those structures which are keys to understanding capitalism. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels are of the view that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. (Quoted in Adams and Sydies, 133). According to this view, Coser states, ever since human society emerged from its primitive and relatively undifferentiated state it has remained fundamentally divided between classes who clash in the pursuit of class. Lewis Cosers analysis of Marxist Thought, Gouldner writes, associates Critical Marxism with backwardness. Essentially Coser sees Scientific Marxism as grounded in the industrially advanced parts of Europe, particularly Germany, thus missing the way in which Scientific Marxism serves to counterbalance the decline of religion as a source of security among workers. (1980: 52). Marxist conflict theory does not charge capitalism the only reason of class conflict. Rather, it is inherent in every differential society. Capitalism only provides potential to this class conflict. Marx notes, according to Coser, 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. Sociological researches too reveal the very fact that even during the ancient times different classes existed in every culture and civilization. Tumin also supports the existence of social classes in primitive ages. According to historical and archaeological records, he states, stratification was present even in the small wandering bands that characterized society in the earliest days of man. In such primitive conditions, according to him, both age and sex in combination with physical strength must have been important criteria of stratification. (1978: 16). Coser’s broad definition of the Marxist Conflict Perspective, Turner writes, serves his intellectual purpose to demonstrate the ubiquity of conflict and to document its functions for system integration. (Turner, 1978: 181). Dahrendorf’s definition of the term Conflict is consistent with his dialectical assumptions. He uses this term for contests, competitions, disputes and tensions. (1957:135). On the other hand, Coser views conflict as violent confrontations. Conflict can be antagonistic or potentially antagonistic, he opines. These antagonisms have promoted integration and adaptations among the parties to the conflict. Fink, like other sociologists, also supports Coser’s broad definition of conflict. Theorists opine that Dahrendorf’s statement of the concept of conflict is limited and narrow. In his work, “Some Conceptual Difficulties”, Fink argues conflict as a social situation or process in which two or more entities are linked by at least one form of antagonistic psychological relation. (1968:456). 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. 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, 1978:149). 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 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. Marx has linked the social stratification to the means of production. The major modern classes are, according to him, "the owners merely of labour-power, owners of capital, and landowners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent. Different individuals make up the production of an organization, but the major profit goes to the upper class or bourgeoisie only, which works far less than the labour classes. The deprivation of rights arise the sentiments of revenge in labour class and conflict arises in society. Marxism perspective shows that Karl Marx lists a number of classes and (antagonistic) social relationship such as freeman and slave, lord and serf, oppressor and oppressed in describing different classes in a society that characterize different historical stages or modes of production. George Ritzer, famous contemporary sociologist, obtains some different views on Marx’s conflict theory. He in his works has criticized Marx and declares his sociological thought a failure especially in respect of being unable to see the positive points and bright aspects of Capitalism. Marx has failed to foresee, in the words of Ritzer, how well capitalism would adapt itself to worker demands (through such mechanisms as legalized labour unions, workers’ compensation, minimum wage, workplace safety and other standards for worker protection). (2003). Further, Marx did not know that the concept of ownership of the means of production might suspend in the joint stock company, Ritzer declares. 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. As Marx had no deep vision and foresight, he could not foresee the marvellous and multi-dimensional aspects of Capitalism due to his prejudice towards this economic system. 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, Giddens and Held view, 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. (1982: 20). Feminist Perspective: Social groups are not only divided into different classes in respect of socio-economic status and different occupations and professions, but also distribution of a society is based on age, gender and religion too. Social inequalities are found in all fields of life and in all the institutions prevailing in a society. In this pretext the Feminist perspective theory came into existence. The idea of division of labour on the basis of gender gave birth to feminism. It was a strong voice against the inequalities between men and women in respect of social status, division of power as well as work and gender discrimination. Wikipedia Encyclopaedia defines feminism in these words: Feminism is said to be the diverse collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies against inequality between men and women, largely motivated by or concerning the experiences of women, especially in terms of their legal, social, political, and economic conditions. Feminist theorists have declared all other theoretical perspectives as prejudiced towards women including functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory. The theorists who brought the significance of women’s participation in the social construction programmes to the limelight were declared as rebels and then liberals and Marxists. With the passage of time, these theorists got the title of Feminists. The feminists perspective resembles with Marxism as both these schools of thoughts were founded against the inequality and domination of some other strata existing in the society. Methodology in Feminism Shulamit Reinharz, Feminist theorist, in her well-known Feminist Methods in Social Research presents the feminist methodology. (Quoted in the Project 5 of Scheurich). According to which Feminist Perspective has the following objectives: Bringing a positive social change in the society based on the principles of equality and justice Representing human diversity in a refined and systematic way To reveal the fact that Feminism is a perspective like structural functionalism, symbolic interactionalism and Conflict Theory; it is neither a research method, nor liberalism or revolt. The researcher is included in Feminist research perspective as individual and a member of a society. Marxist-feminists characterise women as alienated especially in capitalism, though radical feminists state alienation exists in all economic system existing in the contemporary world. Women at different parts of the world, whether developing or developed, contain a rich and long-term history of struggle against male domination and exploitation. They have strived in an organized way, on their own behalf against exploitation and diminishing circumstances. This history, according to Chowdhury, has been repressed because it is threatening to the state and the power-structure that benefits from women’s oppressed conditions. The history of women’s resistance is complex and rich in the diversity of ways that women have fought back in their specific cultural location and most effective methods for the situation. In her words: The richest, most varied, and most typical arena of women’s political engagement is found in the politics of everyday life. The site of this activism is the terrain between the state and family that is usually ignored in conventional investigations of politics. Viewed globally, the diversity of civic activities is staggering, even though countries vary dramatically in the form and extensiveness of civic life and the places of women in it (1994, 18). In the nineteenth century, women writers, novelists and poets were discouraged while producing their works. Even, Mary Evans Ann had to name her George Eliot to hide and conceal her feminine identity. Though Victorian literature contained the works of female writers, but the atmosphere was not appreciable at all. The share of women in social construction was not acknowledged, although they worked in fields, in hospitals, teaching institutes and other professions. Still the male domination was oppressive and tyrannical. At first, Elizabeth Stanton in 19th century and Emma Goldman in the beginning of 20th century raised her voice in the United States for the women rights. Other feminist theorists including Patricia Hill Collins and others launched campaign for their rights in the later half of 20th century and demanded that women too should have been the same rights as had been delegated to men. Eisenstein has described the radical feminist theory in these words: Historically, radical feminism started with the assumption that the sexes are adversarially poised, that men have power over women, and that society and its various social relationships can be best understood in terms of their relationship to that situation (Eisenstein 1983). CONCLUSION Both Marxist and Feminist perspectives reveal the very fact that conflict does exist between the classes of almost each and every society of the world. This conflict has long roots in history perhaps with the establishment of clans and tribes in ancient times. The conflict either apparent or latent is based on resources between haves and haves not. Marxists theorists view this conflict as the result of the struggle between different social classes of society. They also blame capitalism responsible for the conflict, and state socialism as an ideal economic system. Marxists view that unequal distribution of wealth and resources is the root-cause of conflict between the classes. On the other hand, feminist theorists take this conflict between the two genders. They declare male population as tyrant and oppressor, which is always ready to suppress and exploit the interests of female stratum of society. Both these perspectives have similarities and dissimilarities in their views. Woods (2001) has described similarities and dissimilarities between the two theoretical perspectives in the following words: For Marxists, the root cause of all forms of oppression consists in the division of society into classes. For many feminists, on the other hand, the oppression of women is rooted in the nature of men. It is not a social but a biological phenomenon. This is an entirely static, unscientific and undialectical conception of the human race. It is an unhistorical vision of the human condition, from which profoundly pessimistic conclusions must flow. For if we accept that there is something inherent in men which causes them to oppress women, it is difficult to see how the present situation will ever be remedied. The conclusion must be that the oppression of women by men has always existed and therefore, presumably, will always exist. (quoted in http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/women/marxism_v_feminism) BIBLIOGRAPHY Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Thought Coser, Lewis Alferd. 1977: “Masters of Sociological Thought: Chowdhury, Najma, (1994). "Redefining Politics: Patterns of Women’s Political Engagement from a Global Perspective." Women and Politics Worldwide. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1957: Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. University Press. Giddens, Anthony and David Held, Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982). HT675 C55 1982 Gimenez, Martha E. 1998. "Marxist Feminism/ Materialist Feminism Marx, Karl. 1971. Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Tr. S. W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb. London: Lawrence & Whishart. Murphy, Dr. M. D. (2006) Anthropological Theories: A Guide Prepared By Students for Students Marxist Anthropology. (Quoted in Robert Lusteck). Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences the University of Alabama. Ritzer, George and Douglas J Goodman. 2003: Classical Sociological Theory. 4th Edition. Skocpol, Theda. 1980. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tumin, Melvin M. 1978. Social Stratification: The forms and functions of inequality. Prentice Hall. Turner, Jonathan H. 1978. The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Dorsey Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel M. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. Woods, Alan (2001). Marxism versus feminism - The class struggle and the emancipation of women Gouldner, Alvin W. (1980) The Two Marxisms.   New York:  Oxford University Press. Read More