Almost every time that we talk about
social inequality or sociology and many other things it is easy to think of
Karl Marx right away. For this paper I will be focusing on Karl Marx and Max Weber.
1.) What are the key tenets of my chosen theorist's explanations of inequality?
That is, how does each theorist define and explain inequality? How does each
theorist define 'class'? In The Inequality Reader, Marx explains to us that
class changes through time and 'we find almost everywhere a complicated
arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social
rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the
Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals gild-masters, journeymen, apprentices,
serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations (Grusky
and Szelenyi 2006).' Marx emphasizes the fact that he has no specific
definition of class, but his own perspective of it is that it is something that
nobody will ever be equal and saw that issue highly conflictive. Everyone's
level of class depends on their level of occupation.'' Weber's definition of class as ''classes,'
'status' 'groups', and 'parties' are phenomena of the distribution of power
within a community (57).' Weber looked at classes as 'one dimensional of social
structures, social status and social power. 'His three main components that
define class are power, wealth, and prestige (Randles 2/16).' The way that
Weber defines class is the best way to define inequality. Those who have power,
wealth, and prestige are the ones who are 'entitled' or inherited with the
ability to hold political power or social honor. Marx defined inequality: '[the
peasants] they are consequently incapable of name, whether through a parliament
or through a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be
represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master,
as an authority over them, as an unlimited governmental power that protects them
against the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The
political influence of the small holding peasants, therefore, finds its final
expression in the executive power subordinating society to itself (46).' That
is the perfect way to describe inequality when one does not control his/her
destiny, when somebody is incapable of name, or when they are treated as
subordinates in their own society.
2 & 3) Marx and Weber do not differ
much from each other. They both lived around the same time, only with Weber
being younger. Both had wealthy upbringings, except that Weber stayed within
the grounds of his class, but Marx chose to reside in the lower-class neighborhood. Their explanations mostly similar
because they agree that the class society is a very controversial matter that
has affected the people and will always affect the global society. Angus
Bancroft from Cardiff University, School of Social Sciences explains how they
differ: 'Weber differed only marginally from Marx
when he defined as a class a category of men who (1) "have in common a
specific causal component of their life chances in so far as (2) this component
is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and
opportunities for income, and (3) it is represented under the conditions of the
commodity or labor market." He was even fairly close to Marx's view,
though not necessarily to those of latter-day Marxists, when he stated that
class position does not necessarily lead to class-determined economic or political
action. He argued that communal class action will emerge only if and when the
"connections between the causes and the consequences of the 'class
situation' (Bancroft 2010)" become transparent; Marx would have said when
a class becomes conscious of its interests, that is, of its relation, as a
class, to other classes. Yet Weber's theory of stratification differs from that
of Marx in that he introduced an additional structural category, that of
"status group." (Bancroft 2010).'
4) For this question, I would
go mostly with the Weber definition of class as Dr. Randless brought up in
class to discuss Weber's components of class; power, wealth, and
prestige (Randles 2016). The biggest corporations are owned by the 1% in
America. In class we were shown a slide show of the richest billionaires in
America, and we saw names, but we did not discussed much on what they owned. I
know that not only the billionaires own everything but the richest corporations
own almost everything too. Disneyland Corp. owns ESPN, ABC and many more. Coca
Cola owns Fanta, Fresca, Sprite and many more drinking companies. Again, that
tells us that the big corporations have total monopoly. Donald Trump probably
has not done anything for the country, but he was born into a wealthy family,
and now he is running for president. His presidential campaign has been marred
by controversy and yet he has been able to get away with every wrong he has
said, provoked, and done, all because of his wealth. Many politicians' kids are
the great benefactors of their parent's legacy, because they do not have to
excel in school or at work to be admitted to prestigious universities or jobs.
Karl Marx and Weber would not be surprised to see the inequality that America
is living today. They'd say that the whole class situation is horrendous and
shameful, because in America we preach liberty, freedom, and equality, but we
do not practice it. Being the most powerful and influential country in the
world, and not being able to live up to its reputation it is something that the
people cannot ignore.
''
Olanike F. Deji described the
perfect way to define the divergence between Weber and Marx:'sociologist''Max Weber''was strongly influenced by Marx's ideas, but rejected the
possibility of effective communism, arguing that it would require an even
greater level of detrimental''social''control''and bureaucratization than capitalist''society. Weber criticized the dialectical presumption of''proletariat''revolt, believing it to be unlikely. Instead, he developed
the three-component theory of stratification and the concept of''life chances. Weber supposed there were''more''class divisions than Marx suggested (Deji 2011).' Weber
claimed there are four main classes: the upper class, the white-collar workers,
the petite''bourgeoisie, and the manual''working class (Grusky 2006). As we can see that Weber's theory is more closely
resembling to those of the of modern Western class structures embraced by
sociologists, although economic status does not seem to depend strictly on
earnings in the way Weber envisioned. There will always be a great debate
whether Marx and Weber had similar viewpoints, but as we know that Weber was
younger and had a different kind of view because Weber started working half a
century later than Marx, Weber derived many of his key concepts on''social stratification''by examining the social structure in Europe, specifically in
Germany. 'Weber examined how many members of the aristocracy lacked
economic''wealth, yet had strong political power. He noted that, contrary to
Marx's theories, stratification was based on more than ownership of capital.
Many wealthy''families''lacked prestige and power, for example, because they were
Jewish' (Deji 2011). Weber introduced three independent factors that form his
theory of stratification hierarchy: class, status, and power. He treated these
as separate but related sources of power, each with different effects on social
action (Randles 2/2016).
...(download the rest of the essay above)