Whilst functionalists do recognise the existence of social disorder and conflicting groups, they view them as a “temporary disturbance to the social system rather than an inbuilt and permanent aspect of society” (Taylor et al, p15) because these differences in interest are “minor compared to the values and interests they have in common.”
Functionalism is often criticised for assuming that one part of society could not function without another and therefore everyone’s actions or positions are determined by another’s. Such extreme determinism is unpopular with those who support the notion of free will and equality.
Ideas of new right perspective became influential in the 1980’s and were closely associated with Margaret Thatcher. “The new right bases its theories on nineteenth centaury liberalism and regarded the free market in capitalist economies as the best basis for organising society.” Whilst new right realism was influenced by functionalism and holds the consensus view, they believe that it is “market forces encouraging competition, which stimulates innovation and efficiency,” rather than the integration of social systems. (Haralambos and Holborne p6) New Right sociologists believe that the welfare states redistribution of recourses interferes with the workings of the free market and undermines economic stability. Free market economies are based upon peoples choices as to where they spend their money, work or employ others to work. Therefore, as apposed to Functionalism, the new right perspective promotes Individual liberty.
However The New Right perspective is open to a number of criticisms. Firstly, “early capitalism was partly based upon the use of slave labour.” (Haralambos and Holborne p8) Secondly, there are many examples that the free market and freedom do not go hand in hand, such as the repressive regime of General Pinochet in 1970’s Chile.
Marxists perspectives are a radical alternative to the functionalist view of social stratification. Marxist sociologists hold the conflict view and “regards stratification as a divisive rather than an integrative structure,” (Haralambos and Holborne p9.) They see it as a mechanism for exploitation.
“Much sociological discussion about social class has been influenced by the writings of Karl Marx.” (Brown, p17) Marx summarized his approach in the first line of The Communist Manifesto, published at the height of the industrial revolution in 1848: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
Marxists contend that in all stratified societies there are only two major groups. These are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the ruling class and the subject class, or the have and the have-nots. “From a Marxists view point, a class is a social group whose members share the same relationship to the means of production,” (Haralambos and Holborne p9.) The bourgeoisie are the minority that own and control the means of production i.e. land, buildings, machinery and capital. This private ownership is the main reason for social inequalities because the proletariat class, “with no means of production, had no alternative but to work for the bourgeoisie.” The bourgeoisie make maximum profit or unearned income by keeping wages unfairly low.
This exploitation oppresses the proletariat class and results in a basic conflict of interests between the two classes. Marx himself said “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” By this he meant that democratically elected governments were largely influenced by the bourgeoisie because they could not afford to ignore their power in hiring and firing and location of industry, which could lead to unemployment and other social problems. This meant that the laws protected the owning class rather than the workers.
He said that “The English have all the material requisites for the revolution. What they lack is the spirit of generalization and revolutionary ardour.” He blamed religion for this lack of awareness or false consciousness in the subject class. Claiming religion was “the opium of the people,” persuading the proletariat to accept their position as right and just, and that “the first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” (www.marxist.org)
Marx decided that eventually this would lead to a revolution in Britain when the proletariat would struggle against the bourgeoisie through strikes, demonstrations and other forms of protest. “After the revolution, the proletariat would nationalise the means of production, by placing them in the hands of the state… a new type of society would be created, without exploitation,” (Brown, p19.) This would be called communism.
One of the most obvious criticisms of Marxism is that the revolution he predicted has not happened in Britain or any of the Western industrialised societies. In those societies where communism did occur, it did not succeed in creating an equal society because instead a new ruling class emerged. “From 1989 onwards a major wave of popular revolts shook Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and swept away the former communist regimes. There is now no communist country left in Europe.” (Brown, p19)
“The work of Max Weber (1864-1920) represents one of the most important developments in stratification theory since Marks.”( Haralambos and Holborne P12) “Weber addressed many of the same concerns addressed by Marx and came to substantially different conclusions to those interpreted by Marx.” His writings on stratification are often referred to as "Dialogue with the ghost of Marx," (sociology.org.uk.) Whilst he agreed with Marx that the ownership of means of production was important in creating class differences and conflict, he also saw important differences in the market situations of the propertyless groups in society and placed high emphasis on Market situations. In Weber’s terminology, a person’s class situation is basically their market situation. “Market situations simply mean that some people are able to get incomes in the job market because they have rare skills, talents or qualifications that are in demand.” (Brown p21)
Weber's "three dimensions of stratification" are: Class, Status and Party. All three dimensions are, for Weber, rooted in the concept of power. “According to Weber, the ability to possess power derives from the individual's ability to control various "social resources". These resources can be anything and everything and might include things like: land, capital, social respect, physical strength and intellectual knowledge,” (sociology.org.uk.)
Webber distinguished four class groupings in capitalist society: the propertied upper class, the propertyless white-collar workers, the petty Bourgeoisie and the manual working class. A propertied class in placed at the top because of their economic power, social status and political influence. A "professional class" was placed next because of their high position in the labor market and ownership of lesser forms of property, in addition to their relatively high social status and some political influence. The petty bourgeoisie was placed third because of their less property ownership, lesser social status and lesser ability to exert political influence. Finally comes the working class, so placed because of their relative lack of property ownership and lower position in the labor market, their low social status and lack of political influence.
“Weber contradicted Marx with his claims that the white-collar ‘Middle class’ expands rather than contracts as capitalism develops” due to the requirement for large numbers of administration and clerical staff. “Thus he saw diversification rather than polarisation,” (Haralambos and Holborne p13.) He also rejected the Marxist idea of the proletarian revolution and the view that political power derived exclusively from economic power.
“Weber's pluralistic approach to social stratification has been criticised for making it very difficult to specify stratified social groups in society….. The boundaries between various groups are almost impossible to specify and we tend to end-up, with a stratification system that is highly fragmented and almost impossible to classify coherently,” (sociology.org.uk.)
In conclusion, most contemporary studies of stratification are based on the conflict view of the Marxist or Weberian perspective. Whilst some modern sociologists have remained close to the original theories, others have attempted to explain modern class structures by adapting the original theories. Such sociologists are referred to as neo-Marxists and neo-Weberian. Although there have been attempts to merge both approaches in to single and conclusive theory, society is organic, evolving and made up of individuals, therefore it not possible for any theory to become an exact science. We must grow our theories as we grow our society. In Marx’s own words, “We develop new principles for the world, out of the world’s own principles.” (1843, cited at Marxist.org)
Mrs Jodieanne Dainter
