Social Inequality Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism
A-Level Sociology
Teaching Notes
Social Inequality:
Theories: Marxism
Theories of Social Stratification.
In these Notes we are going to focus our attention on the various ways in which social stratification has been analysed and explained by a number of different writers working within a variety of theoretical perspectives.
In particular, we are going to examine in some detail theories of stratification that centre around three main categories or types:
a. Social Class stratification.
b. Gender stratification.
c. Ethnic group stratification.
In this respect, it needs to be noted that we will consider each of the above as theoretically separate forms of stratification for the purpose of outlining and evaluating both their basic nature and the ways in which they can be theorized. In the "real world" of social interaction, of course, we frequently find that some or all of these basic forms coexist (an idea that we will develop in a bit more detail at a later point).
We can begin this examination of theories of social stratification by looking at the concept of social class and, in particular at the way in which Marxist, Weberian and Functionalist, perspectives have theorized this concept...
Marxist Perspectives on Social Class Stratification.
A. How Social Class Is Defined.
In order to understand how both Marx in particular and Marxist writers in general have attempted to define and theorize "social stratification" we must first look briefly at the historical background and context of Marx's view of social stratification.
In this respect, Marx argued that Western society (which includes our own society) had developed through four main epochs ("periods in time"):
1. Primitive communism.
2. Ancient society.
3. Feudal society.
4. Capitalist society.
As Marx argued ("The Communist Manifesto: Bourgeois and Proletarians"),
"In the earlier epochs of history we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome [an example of the second epoch listed above] we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages [an example of the third epoch listed above], feudal lords, vassals, guild masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society [ that is, Capitalist society - the fourth epoch noted above] that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in places of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: bourgeoisie [the ruling class] and proletariat [the working class]."
For Marx, only the first epoch (the "primitive communism" of various forms of hunter-gatherer society) was free from some form of social stratification on the basis of class. This was because, for Marx, class forms of social stratification only come into existence once people start producing more goods than they require to fulfil their everyday needs - and hunter-gatherer societies are basically subsistence societies; that is, people can only manage to hunt / gather enough food for their everyday needs.
Before we start to look in greater detail at Marx's conception of class it is important to note that each of the four epochs noted above are not hard-and-fast "stages" of human development (in the sense that one epoch "ends" and another "begins" - which, as an aside, was the way in which Auguste Comte ("The Positive Philosophy") theorized historical development). Rather, we need to see each epoch merging with the one that preceded it and the one that gradually replaced it, over a period of many hundreds of years.
You might also like to note that Marx delineated a fifth epoch, "advanced Communism" that he argued was destined to finally replace Capitalism.
In looking at Marx's conception of social class, therefore, we can initially note a number of points:
1. Firstly, all human societies (except, as has been noted above, the earliest forms of hunter-gather societies) have been "class based" in some way, shape or form.
By this, at the most basic level of interpretation, Marx meant that in every known human society there has been a fundamental division between two broad social groups, namely that:
a. One group has always owned and controlled the fundamental material resources that are necessary for the maintenance of social existence (such things as food production, the creation of shelter, clothing and so forth).
b. One group has not owned or controlled the production of such things.
In modern Britain we can express the above most clearly in terms of the basic class structure of society thus:
a. Those who own and control the means of production (which involves ownership of such things as land, factories, financial institutions and the like):
This is the Capitalist class (or "bourgeoisie").
b. Those who own nothing but their ability to sell their labour power (that is, their ability to work) in return for wages:
This is the Working class (or "proletariat").
2. From the above we can note two important points:
a. In any society the economic sphere (that is, the productive process involving the creation of goods and services for distribution and exchange) is always the most basic, fundamental and ultimately most significant sphere because it is only through economic activity that people can produce the things they need for their physical survival.
In short, economic production, since it is vital for the reproduction of human life, is always the most fundamental activity in which people engage.
b. A its most basic, there are always two major classes in any society according to Marx (the aforementioned bourgeoisie and proletariat).
We need to be clear that Marx was not claiming that there are only ever two classes in any society (as we will see in a moment, it is possible for numerous "classes" to exist in society); rather, he was saying that:
a. Only under communism could there be a single class (since communism involves the "dictatorship of the proletariat").
b. The "two class" model is simply the most basic and fundamental form of class society.
That is, he was arguing that, however many classes it may be possible to delineate empirically in a society, at the root of any society stands these two great classes defined in terms of their relationship to the means of production.
3. Marx was aware that there could be individual movement ("social mobility") between the two great classes he theorized. Capitalists could be driven out of business and into poverty / wage labour by competition, just as members of the working class could raise capital ("finance"), create their own successful business and grow rich.
However, thinking about these individual events in the grand scheme of things, they recede into insignificance, in social terms, for two main reasons according to Marx:
a. This type of movement tends to be very limited.
b. It doesn't alter the fundamental principle of Marx's concept of class - it doesn't really matter very much who is a member of the bourgeoisie and who is a member of the proletariat. All that really matters is that these two classes exist.
Having said this, it will become evident when we look at the question of class cultures and class consciousness that social mobility may be significant in terms of these, and related, concepts...
4. We can see from the above that, according to Marx's view of things, Capitalism as an economic system of production, distribution and exchange possesses a "logic of its own", regardless of who individual members of the bourgeoisie actually are. The "economic logic" to which Marx refers involves such things as:
a. The need to make a profit.
b. The need to exploit others in order to make profits.
In this respect, to be a "capitalist" involves, by definition, both the exploitation of others and the keeping of profits for "personal" use / disposal. In short, Marx was arguing that, logically, Capitalism as an economic system cannot exist / survive without this profit motive and exploitation.
5. In the above respect, we are presented with a picture of class stratification that is apparently contradictory:
a. Within the overall parameters of the system there can, theoretically, be as much or as little social movement between classes as possible, yet:
b. The fundamental relationship between social classes (as opposed to particular individuals within each class) will remain the same.
In simple terms, all Marx is saying in the above respect is that it doesn't really matter very much in terms of society as a whole who does the exploiting (whether they do it pleasantly or cruelly, for example). All that really matters is that exploitation of one class by another takes place.
To understand this point more clearly we have to understand that, for Marx, social classes are objective categories in any society other than a communist one. In this respect, the argument is that we can define social classes (on the basis of people's relationship to a production process) independently of the individuals who belong to it.
This doesn't mean that social classes can exist without people (an "error of reification"). Rather, it means that in order to be defined as belonging to a particular class individuals have to obey the economic logic to which I referred above. In simple terms:
A Capitalist who doesn't make profits will not be a capitalist for long...
As I have suggested at various points in the above, Marx made a clear distinction between two things:
a. The objective definition of social class (in this instance, the individual's relationship to the process of production) and
b. The subjective definition of social class (whether or not an individual believes themselves to belong to the class into which they can be objectively allocated).
Marx was not alone in making this distinction (although he is frequently accused of ignoring or overlooking the social significance of the latter). It is a distinction that appears through the literature of any discussion of class (from whatever perspective) and, for this reason, it will be more useful to discuss it in greater detail in the Study Pack that covers the question of "class consciousness".
Before we start to look at the implications of Marx's analysis of social stratification for both social change and social stability, we can recap and expand some of the main features and implications of Marx's basic arguments in the following terms:
1. All societies are characterized by the struggle between social classes; between, on the one hand, those who own and control the means of economic production and those who do not. Historically, for example, this basic relationship (or "dichotomy" - simply defined as a distinction between two things) has been expressed by Marx in terms of:
a. Ancient societies - Master and slave.
b. Feudal societies - Lord and serf.
c. Capitalist societies - Bourgeoisie and proletariat (employer and employee).
2. This relationship (between owners and non-owners) is one that is both dependent and inherently conflictual.
It is a "mutually dependent" relationship because, for example:
Capitalists require people to work for them in order to create profits.
Workers need capitalists in order to earn money for their physical survival.
It is also a "conflictual" relationship because, according to Marx, each class has different basic interests:
It is in the interest of a capitalist class to keep it ownership of the means of production (to attempt, in short to make the most profit it can out of its relationship with the proletariat it exploits).
It is in the interests of a working class to seize ownership of the means of production - to replace a capitalist class with a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Question:
Briefly explain why it might be in the interests of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to own the means of production in society.
3. This "contradictory relationship" of dependency and conflict helps to explain both:
a. The basis of social stability in society (how things remain the same) and
b. The basis of social change.
Marx called this contradiction a "dialectical relationship" (a union of opposites), but it's perhaps easier to think of it, in these terms, as a kind of "love / hate" relationship perhaps...
The "Two-Class model" of Social Stratification: Closing Observations.
Marx was aware that whilst it was both theoretically and logically evident that two basic classes exist in any society, the "empirical reality" of class stratification in most societies was substantially different. In this respect Marx was aware that:
a. Modes of economic production changed more rapidly than people's ability to adapt to such changes (for example, even the gradual transition between a feudal mode of production - based upon land ownership and agriculture - and a capitalist mode of production - based upon the ownership of capital and industry - meant that class groups would still exist for a time in the latter as a left over from the former.
For example, even as factory production started to become the norm in the early industrial period (leading to the emergence of an urban working class), a peasant class based around pre-capitalist, agricultural forms of production would still exist for a time.
Such classes were seen by Marx to be "transitional classes", in the sense that they would eventually disappear once the new mode of production had established its dominant position.
b. Secondly, and more importantly, splits / divisions of greater or lesser importance were acknowledged to exist within the two broad classes.
For example, within the bourgeoisie the interests of:
1. Manufacturing capital (those who owned factories and produced commodities for sale) and
2. Finance capital (bankers, financiers and so forth),
were frequently at odds with one another since Manufacturing Capital was involved with the long-term creation and reproduction of profits whilst Finance capital did not produce anything but created profits through short-term lending to industry.
Additionally, we could also point to the vast difference between Trans-national companies (that is, companies which operate in more than one country) and small businesses.
Conversely, amongst the proletariat we can find clear differences between:
a. Those employed in minor supervisory roles and
b. Those whose work involves no supervision of others.
B. How Social Order is Created and Maintained.
Given that, according to Marx, class conflict is inevitable, we need to understand how social order maintained in class stratified societies. In order to do this we need to look at how Marxists generally understand the basic structure of social systems.
1. As noted above, social systems can be classified in terms of two basic divisions:
a. Their economic base (the system of production that gives rise to two basic classes - those who own the means of production and those who sell their labour power).
b. Their political and ideological superstructure that surrounds and "rests upon" the economic infrastructure.
In simple terms, the economic base of a social system consists of the various forces of production which produce particular types of social relations to the production process. Thus:
In feudal society the forces of production relate to agricultural forms of economic production, ownership of land and so forth. The basic social relations of production that this produces is the distinction between Lord and Peasant.
In capitalist society the forces of production relate to industrial forms of economic production, the ownership of capital and so forth. This gives rise to social relations of production based around the distinction between Employer and Employee.
As this example illustrates:
A change in the forces of production (for example, from agriculture to industry) produces a change in the social relations to production (for example, from a Lord / Peasant relationship to an Employer / Employee relationship).
This change in social relationships as the forces of production change is important not just in class terms (since there is still, according to Marx, the basic division of society into two broad classes) but also in terms of the political and ideological relationship between the two classes.
In the first instance, for example, peasants had few political rights in feudal society and they had no legal right to organize politically to challenge the ruling ideas in society (how it was organized and the like).
In the second instance, because the relationship changes to a simple one of legal contract (the employer has no legal rights over his / her employee as a person - wage earners are not slaves, for example), it is possible for a system of political rights to develop, involving ideological challenges to the ruling ideas in society (a classic and obvious example in our society being the rise of Trade Unions to represent the interests of the working class and the emergence of the Labour Party as the political representative of organized labour.
2. The superstructure of a social system consists of two related spheres:
a. The State (which involves things like a system of government, judicial systems, a Civil Service and the like). This is the political sphere.
b. Ideological institutions (which involves things like religion, the mass media, education and so forth). This is the ideological sphere (the realm of ideas about the nature of the social world).
Marx argued that the economic infrastructure was the most important division in society because:
a. It involved the production, distribution and exchange of the essential requirements for living (beginning with basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter and ending with all kinds of "necessary" consumer goods - televisions, cars, videos and so forth).
b. Systems of government, communication and the like are dependent upon the way in which a society organizes itself to provide these essential requirements.
If this seems a little unclear, we can make the relationship easier to understand by using an analogy...
Base and Superstructure: An analogy.
Let's imagine that "society" is like a building.
Any building, if it is to remain standing, requires some kind of foundation and, for Marx, the "foundations" upon which "society" stands was its economic base.
In this respect, foundations influence the type of building that can be erected. A 50-storey office block, for example, requires deeper and stronger foundations than a single storey house and, whilst there is nothing to stop you building an office block on foundations designed to support a bungalow, such a building would rapidly collapse since its foundations would not be sufficient to support its weight...
Thinking in terms of foundations, therefore, such things are, by their very nature:
a. Difficult to observe and
b. Difficult to change
once they are established since they are, of course, buried in the ground.
Once you have established your foundations, you are able to build your offices, house or whatever and this is analogous to the superstructure of a society. As we have noted, the social superstructure has two main dimensions:
a. Politics:
We can compare this dimension to the look and overall shape of a building, insofar as within the basic limitations imposed by your foundations you can design and build a variety of different-looking buildings.
b. Ideology:
This dimension is comparable to the various ways in which it is possible for you to furnish your building once it has been built. People who live in the same type of building, for example, may have very different ideas about how it can be furnished, the use to which each room can be put and so forth.
Clearly, if you think about it, there are constraints upon what can be done to the building in the above respect, since such factors as room size and number, the way in which the building has been designed and so forth will all be important factors here.
Thinking about things in this way:
1. Politics, ideology and economics all combine to shape the overall look and feel of society (just as the foundations, house design and furnishings all combine to shape the look and feel of a building).
honey_bunny