What did Marx mean by Historical materialism?
Marx’s theory of historical materialism took a methodological approach of the study of society. “Historical entailed the analysis of how particular forms of society had come into existence. Materialism denoted the rejection of Hegelian idealism and the primacy of socio economic processes and relations.” Scott,J. (2014). The difference between the means of production e.g raw materials, technology, natural resources, and the social relations of production e.g the relations you create by using the means of production. These two factors together create the mode of production. Marx noticed that historically throughout all societies the mode of production changes. For example, in European societies it has progressed from a feudal to a capitalist mode. The capitalist mode are capable of economic growth at a much faster rate as they have the ability to put more investment into their businesses meaning the means of production would progress a lot faster than the relations of production. This discrepancy between the base, the political economy and the superstructure, that economies social institutions would fuel a large source for disagreements. Under this system, the proletariat sell their labour in low paid jobs in return for money as a means of survival. Marx concluded that capitalism was prone to crises caused by the lack of investment into labour and relations of production. He suggested that the surplus value, “the excess of value produced by the labour of workers over the wages they are paid” Scott,J. (2004), seized from labour is the source of the profit and the amount of this profit would decrease even as the economy grows, when the rate falls below a certain point this would result in an economic recession where parts of society and businesses would fall into an economic crash. Marx believed that this cycle of increase and decline would create an empowerment of the ruling class. He believes that if the proletariat where to take control of the means of production it would encourage better social relations and treatment of labour creating a system less prone to economic crash. To achieve this however, he declared the situation to be non negotiable only to be achieved by a violent revolution. To conclude, Marx’s historical materialism highlights the bourgeoisie’s control of the mode of production, being business owners they have the power to oppress the proletariat selling their labour for survival. This oppression is reinforced by social institutions of the superstructure, e.g. how Marx suggests “religion is the opium if the people” used to oppress.
- Scott,J. (2014) oxford dictionary of sociology. 4th ed. P.308.
- Scott,J. (2014) oxford dictionary of sociology. 4th ed. P.743.
- Marx, K. (1844). A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher
How did Weber connect the ‘Protestant ethic’ and the ‘Spirit of Capitalism’?
Max Weber (1864-1920) “saw sociology as the scientific study of social action” and as a force for social change. Weber noticed that many previous societies had elements of capitalism within the sense of a greed over wealth which was often spent on the consumption of luxury items. However, modern capitalism is different, he argues as it is based on “the systematic, efficient rational pursuit of profit for its own sake rather than for consumption”. Weber called this the spirit of capitalism. Calvinists, for example driven by asceticism ( the calvinists encouragement of values such as: hard work, discipline and the rejection of self indulgence creating the Protestant work ethic) Kalberg,S. explains this as “these sincere believers forcefully placed work and material success in the middle of their lives; little else seemed to matter greatly to them, not even family, friendship, leisure or hobbies.” Kalberg,S. (2001) They chose to accumulate their wealth and invest it in the most rational means possible, their businesses causing them to grow and develop creating further wealth to reinvest. In Weber’s view this is the spirit of modern capitalism. His work is often considered to be an argument with ‘Marx’s ghost’ as Marx argued that economic and material factors where the driving force for change. Whereas, Weber argued that material factors are not enough to bring about capitalism. Calvinists also believed in predestination, the idea that they were chosen by God for salvation, taught to believe that their rejection of self indulgence and ‘honest’ means of living sticking to strong religious principles would result in a reward of economic success. Nanda,M. Also discussed increased religiosity in successful capitalist societies “there is no doubt that growing religiosity, is at least in part, a response to new socio-psychological needs created by neo liberalism and globalisation.” She describes how middle class Indians turn to village Gods for support with their new found wealth donating money to the churches to provide for lavish weddings and events. To conclude, we can see that in Weber’s theories of ‘the Protestant ethic’ and ‘spirit of capitalism’ the two are greatly connected. The Protestant ethic, the need to work hard sticking to the self discipline of this worldly asceticism, is needed in order to obtain the spirit of capitalism of reinvesting the profits created by the Protestant ethic back into the businesses of the capitalist society.
- Kalberg, S. (2012). The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge, p.xi.
- Priyadarshir, S. (n.d.). Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism According to Weber. Your article library.com
- Nanda, M. (2009). The God market: how globalisation is making India Moreno Hindu. 1st ed. p.64.
How did Durkheim explain suicides as a social phenomenon?
Durkheim is considered to be one of the founding fathers of functionalism and his theory on suicide is supposedly inspired by how deeply he had been affected by the suicide of a close friend. Durkheim saw sociology as a scientific study of society, he believed society could be observed similarly to how we study biology in science. His organic analogy stated that society was similar to ‘the human body’ with interlinking parts all with a function of their own that working together ensured the survival as a whole, reiterated by Parsons, Trueman,C. states “Parsons believes that as a society changes, it develops and the pattern variables within it will become more complex. Change, therefore, trickles throughout society. Parsons summed this up as the ‘organic analogy’ .” He wanted to prove society as suicide where linked, so that sociology would become more valued in society. From Durkheim’s theory, he describes suicide as a social fact “consisting of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him” (Durkheim, 1982). Durkheim’s research was heavily quantitative focusing largely on statistical analysis of different societies, showing that through comparison rates of suicide varies in some cases drastically between different countries. He found that in general Protestant countries had higher suicide rates than catholic countries and that countries facing times of war had lower suicide rates and countries facing recession had higher suicide rates. Looking at societies individuals he found that those who are single, childless and widowed had higher suicide rates than those who are married with children. He concluded that the patterns he discovered where due to the individuals level of integration in society – the feeling of belonging to a group, usually enforced by social institutions e.g the family, school and work. And their level of regulation in society – the amount of control the society has over the individuals. From these two social facts he founded four types of suicide: altruistic – too much social integration, egoistic – too little integration, fatalistic – too much regulation and anomic – too little regulation explained by how Steve D Taylor (1982) states “thus according to Durkheim, facts such as rates of external association were only means of reaching the real causes of suicide, which he attributed to an imbalance of currents of egoism, altruism, anomie and fatalism.
Durkheim explained suicide as being a social phenomenon that can be understood as a “social fact”. He described suicide as being a personal and individual act that was the product of two social factors, integration and regulation of the individual into society.
- Durkheim, É. (1982). The rules of sociological method. Pp. 50-59.
- Taylor, S. (1982).Durkheim and the study of suicide. p.9.
- Trueman, C. (2015). Functionalism. [online] The History Learning Site. Available at: http://historylearningsite.co.uk
How does Goffman’s concept of the ‘performed self’ help us better understand social action.?
Firstly, social action according to Scott.J Oxford dictionary of sociology, is an “individual or group behaviour that involves interaction with other individuals or groups, especially organised action towards social reform.” We can see that through Goffman’s theory, the ‘performed self’, a theory that states we are capable of creating more than one conscious self but rather a “multi faced self” – Singewood (2000) able to cope in all different encounters, that our ability to do this would aid in said “interaction with other individuals or groups.” This is better explained through Goffman’s ‘Dramaturgical model’ this theory states that we are all ‘actors’ of our multiple selfs in society, with the aim to create a convincing ‘performance’ of each role we choose to play. We seek to create a particular image of ourselves depending on the situation or who we are speaking to, our audience, to do this correctly we must adapt ourselves to ensure our chosen role gives the right impression. We do this on the ‘front of stage’ as opposed to the ‘back of stage’ where we can be ourselves and distance ourselves away from out roles. This distancing is what Goffman’s would call a ‘role distance’ he explains this as how “the individual tries to isolate himself as much as possible from the contamination of the situation, as when an adult riding along (a fairground ride) to guard his child makes an effort to be completely stiff, affectless and preoccupied.” Goffman.E (1961). Radical feminists however, would disagree with Goffman’s theory that we are in charge and control our own roles, as they would suggest our patriarchal society is what controls the behaviour of women rather than themselves. We can see that Goffman’s ‘performed self’ and ‘Dramaturgical model’ help us to understand how social action takes place as they explain how we downward and upwardly converge in our interactions with other social groups to create understanding and connections do achieve social action and “organised action towards social reform.”
- Scott,J. (2014) oxford dictionary of sociology. 4th ed. P.607.
- Edgley, C. and Brissett, D. (2017). Role distance. Life as Theater: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook, 2(1), p.Chapter 5.
How do feminist theories help to explain gender divisions and inequalities in society?
Feminism according to Scott,J. (2014) is “a social movement, combining theory with political practice, which seeks to achieve equality between men and women.” The first feminist theorist to highlight gender divisions and inequalities in society was, Harriet Martineau (1802-1876) even prior to the work of Marx or Weber, Martineau was paving the way with her theories on social class, religion and women’s rights. Throughout all waves of feminism societies inequalities are highlighted through a variety of ways. Stephanie Hodgson – Wright (1988) states “the twentieth century began with suffragettes fighting for the right to vote, and at its close we see the ‘Spice Girls’ in bra tops asserting ‘girl power’. This suggests how historically throughout all waves of feminism we can identify women’s resistance and fight against different forms of oppression. In the first wave of feminism, suffragettes fought for the right to vote resulting in 1918 women aged 30+ were given the right to vote. Their continued fighting then resulted in a decade later women aged 21+ were granted the right to vote, the lengths the suffragettes fought to gain these rights was the beginning of wider societies introduction to recognising existing gender inequalities. Other feminist theories such as Ann Oakley use feminism to explain the inequalities amongst social institutions in society e.g. the family. Ann Oakley’s “the sociology of housework” suggests female ‘housewives’ are seen as the homemakers of a household expected to partake in a ‘triple shift’ of cooking, cleaning and emotional support for the family. Oakley. A (1974) suggests this depicts women to be the ‘takers of shit’ under a patriarchal force of power that is inescapable even in their own homes. Another example of this gender inequality enforced through social institutions is Pollak.O’s chivalry thesis. The theory suggests that most agents of the criminal justice system are male e.g police officers, judges in court, and males are socialised to act in a chivalrous manner toward females thus resulting in female criminals being treated more leniently. “Men hate to accuse women and thus send them to their punishment, police officers dislike arrest them, district attorneys to prosecute them, judges and juries to find them guilty, and so on.” Pollak. O (1950) feminist theorists explain gender divisions and inequalities in society to be a product of oppression imposed by patriarchal society and its social institutions.
- Scott,J. (2014). Oxford dictionary of sociology. 4th ed. P.245.
- Hodgson – Wright, S. (2000). Early feminism. The Routledge companion of feminism and postfeminism, p.12.
- Pollak, O. (1977). Criminological Theory: Its Ideology and Implications concerning Women. The British Journal of Sociology, 28(1), pp.89-100