Explaining Inequalities according to Marx's Conflict Theory - Term Paper Example

Explaining Inequalities Suicide bombing is a phenomenon that largely embodies Karl Marx’s conflict theory. In any case, suicide bombing stems from political conflict, particularly territorial disputes. The article of Robert Brym entitled Six Lessons of Suicide Bombers demonstrates that conflict theory reveals how groups compete for power and influence while limited by resources. Brym mentions several causes of suicide bombing, such as territorial disputes (e.g. Israeli-Palestinian conflict), ideologies, nationalism, retaliation, strategic goals, defense against harsh repression, etc. The conflicts, such as that of the Israeli and Palestinians, arise over territorial rights, ideologies, and conflicting religious beliefs. Basically, there usually exists a component of intense ideological conflicts in secular and/or religious convictions. Specific factors also present are an extremely repressive state that is incapable of preventing or regulating terrorist activities; oppression or tyranny by a dominant entity; a history of political hostility; and so on. The studies cited by Brym would indicate that an organization’s decision to employ suicide bombing is either based on strategic/rational reasoning or emotional/retaliatory motives. The execution of suicide bombing discloses an organization’s inclination to take full advantage of ideological goals as well as its necessity to fight for power and resources. According to Marx’s conflict theory, society is composed of individuals and/or groups vying for scarce resources, such as power, territory, etc. Competition over these limited resources is at the core of every social relationship. For instance, Israelis and Palestinians are competing for territorial rights, political power, and public support. Thus, the Israeli-Palestinian relationship is a perfect example of Marx’s account of conflict. This conflict-ridden relationship is characterized not only by politics, but by religion and ideology, as well. Ideological and religious conflict arises due to the failure of the political sphere to resolve the territorial dispute. As Brym emphasizes, “Any political conflict makes people look for ways to explain the dispute and imagine a strategy for resolving it; they adopt or formulate an ideology” (Hartmann & Uggen 23). This is precisely how Marx explains conflict theory. According to Karl Marx larger social structures and institutions, such as the economy and market, reveal the competition for valuable resources and the deep-seated inequality such competition generates; certain individuals and/or groups/organizations have greater access to or control over resources, and exploit such resources to strengthen and sustain their privileged and powerful positions in society. And according to Scanlan and colleagues (2010), in their article entitled The Scarcity Fallacy, Marx is largely correct. As stated by the researchers, “Sociologists have found that social inequalities, distribution systems, and other economic and political factors create barriers to food access” (Hartmann & Uggen 163). The widely held assumption that scarcity is the major, single cause of worldwide hunger has been critically questioned by contemporary scholars. These scholars found out that “on a per capita basis, food is more plentiful today than any other time in human history” (Hartmann & Uggen 164). So why does global hunger persist? The answer to this question rests in the basic presumption of critical theory—inequality. Food distribution practices, whether local or global, are inequitable. Some of the major forms of inequality related to this issue are poverty, gender, ethnic, and so on. Conflict theory claims that society is always competing over resources, and such competition or conflict results in social change. Poverty is one of the major factors determining such competition. Obviously, those who belong to the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder have more difficulties accessing or affording food. However, there are other factors, such as gender and ethnic, contributing to the unfair competition over resources. As explained by the researchers, “countries with more gender inequality (especially in education) have the greatest degree of child hunger” (Hartmann & Uggen 167). They further noted that gender inequality affects women’s access to reproductive health and hinders their chances to better their social position. In such situation, a huge population of children could be an outcome of subjection, lack of power, and poverty. The same is true for ethnic inequality: “Ethnic inequality can also contribute significantly to world hunger, especially in countries with marginalized minorities and a history of present situation of ethnic violence” (Hartmann & Uggen p. 167). The consequences of these inequalities are unequal employment opportunities, land deprivation, market disorders, etc. that ruin what for a large number of people is their sole opportunity to generate funds for food. Why is it that even though civil rights law already criminalized or illegalized discrimination in the workplace, job discrimination still exists? The answer to this question rests in Durkheim’s consensus theory. Consensus theorists believe that inequality brings about social order, and thus functional for society. They presume that institutions and certain practices, such as job discrimination, emerge and endure because they fulfill a role in society, creating and maintaining order and stability. Job discrimination, as explained by Cedric Herring in his article entitled Is Job Discrimination Dead, persists because of employers’ “rational response to imperfect information and imperfect markets” (Hartmann & Uggen 193). Without adequate information or knowledge about prospective employees, employers exercise established ‘average productivity characteristics’ (Hartmann & Uggen 193) of prospective employees to determine who will generate the greatest input or advantages for the company. Basically speaking, preconceived notions about black employees being less productive than white workers rationalize employers’ tendency to sidestep competent and qualified black applicants. But this consensus-based explanation of job discrimination has been heavily criticized by conflict theorists. They argue that job discrimination is rooted in prejudice, injustice, and group competition over limited resources. Those who discriminate based on racial affiliation usually exercise negative stereotypes to justify their act, which, consequently, strengthens and preserves racial discrimination. As demonstrated in the three articles, society is characterized by both conflict and consensus. No society is characterized only by conflict or consensus. Society will not survive with conflict or consensus alone. In reality, conflict and consensus work together to produce social order and stability; in essence, they coexist. Conflict is a necessary precondition for consensus. Inequalities were already present since the beginning of humanity. Competition has always been the major survival mode; without competition or conflict, the ‘tragedy of the commons’ will definitely come into fruition. Work Cited Hartmann, Douglas & Christopher Uggen. The Contexts Reader. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Incorporated, 2011. Print. Read More