It is possible that the education system does always successfully produce docile and submissive workers, this is the view taken by Willis (1977). Willis conducted a study on working class boys as they ended school and began work. Willis found that the boys were aware that society is not meritocratic and that their chances of upward social mobility were low. The boys did as little work as possible at school and work finding as much time as possible to “have a laff”. This means that the education system does not always produce the workers that are required by the Capitalist system.
The Marxist theory of society states that there are two classes within society and that one exploits the other. Marxism ignores the presence of the middles class, workers who are not necessarily exploited. Society today is divided into three classes which deviates from the Marxism view of Capitalism. This suggests that Marxist theory is not relevant to society today.
Neo-Marxist theory differs from Marxist theory. The focal point of Neo-Marxism is the relationship between the infrastructure, the economy and the superstructure, the institutions within society such as education, and the media. Neo-Marxists argue that the superstructure transmits the ruling class ideology which ensures that the working class maintain false class-consciousness. As stated previously, Marxists such as Althusser believed that education transmits the false belief that society is meritocratic so pupils work hard as they think that hard work is rewarded. This may not be the case as upper class and middle class pupils have advantages such as the opportunity of private education; material goods and cultural capital, all of which can help them succeed within the education system.
Neo-Marxism revolves largely around the relationship between the infrastructure, the economy and the superstructure, the institutions with society such as the mass media and education. Neo-Marxism states that that the superstructure transmits the ruling class ideology, which ensures that the working class hold a false class-consciousness. This prevents them from realising their situation and revolting. Marxists such as Althusser stated how this is present in institutions such as education. The ruling class ideology transmitted insinuates that education is meritocratic so the pupils, future work hard, as they think that hard work results in appropriate rewards. This is not necessarily the case as upper and middle class pupils have the advantages of private schooling, material goods and cultural capital; all of these can increase their chances of success. As a result of this it is apparent that education may simply reproduce class positions and maintain class inequality.
Neo-Marxists such as Wright (1976) believe that the class system is more complex than traditional Marxist suggested. Wright makes reference to the contradictory classes; the propertyless middle class whose views differ from the working class. Wright calls these contradictory classes as they being exploited but not the same extent as the working class; as a result of this they do not believe that there is class inequality. This element of Neo-Marxism is more relevant to contemporary UK as the it takes the middles class into account and it explains why many people do not believe that they are being exploited.
Neo-Marxism does no overcome all of the weakness of Marxist theory. Neo-Marxism is still reductionist and deterministic as it states that inequality is solely due to economic factors and that people of the same class all react the same way to their situation. Neo-Marxism is also heavily reliant on the concept of “false class consciousness”. As stated previously, the working class may not have a false class consciousness, this is shown by the research by Marshall et al. Neo-Marxism states that the superstructure transmits the ruling class ideology which shapes the workers and workers of the future. As shown by Willis, pupils do not necessarily work and become the workers desired by the Capitalist system. This shows that as Neo-Marxism does not overcome many of the weaknesses of Traditional Marxism it is not useful in explaining social class inequalities in contemporary UK.
Weberian Theory is another conflict theory. Weberian Theory differs from Marxist Theory as it does not hold economic factors solely into account. Weberian theory outlines three influences on inequality. One of these was class and Weber outlined four social classes, the propertied upper class, the propertyless white-collar workers, the petty bourgeoisie and the manual working class. Another influence on inequality was status, ones social standing. Status can be obtained from occupation, religion, gender, race as well as consumption. Weber’s theory of inequality is placed great emphasis on the concept of “status groups”, people united by similar statuses. Status groups can used to divide classes. This was outlined in the research by Margaret Stacey in the 1950s. Her research into the people of Banbury, Oxfordshire found that the manual working class were divided into three different status groups; the respectable working, class, the ordinary working class and the rough working class. The third influence on inequality suggested by Weberian Theory is party. This can be described as the amount of political power someone has which can be obtained from membership to trade unions, freemasons, old boy networks and political parties. Weber looked at the affect of class, status and party on life chances. Differences in class, status and party lead to conflict and inequality within society.
Weberian Theory is highly useful in explaining why there is inequality in society. Weberian Theory takes into account many factors that can divide people within society. Over the years there have been conflicts caused by various factors. In South Africa the apartheid divided people based on their race, status groups are of high importance within the Caste system in Hindu society. Weberian Theory is useful in explaining conflict with contemporary UK as it takes so many factors into account.
It can be argued that Weberian Theory is present in contemporary UK. There are many cases of occupations within the sport of entertainment industry where people gain the same or more wealth than those in the upper classes. However, although having the same amount of wealth as the upper classes, they are not considered to be the same as the upper classes as they are not of the same social status as the upper class. This shows that there are factors other than economics that divide people within society.
It can be argued that Weberian Theory exaggerates the importance of party and class on people’s lives. Sociologists, particularly postmodernists, would argue that other factors are more important than those mentioned by Weberian Theorists. Postmodernists argue that the consumption of people within society is more important than the factors outlined by Weberian theorists.
Like many theories, Weberian theory simply addresses the problems present in society. Weberian Theory offers no solutions to the problems in society. This limits the usefulness of the theory.
Neo-Weberian Theorists such as Parkin (1979) use the concept is social closure to explain conflict within society. Social closure is the strategies used to maintain group privileges. Neo-Weberian Theorists also make reference to exclusion strategy; the way in which members of a groups exclude others. Parkin states that some of the excluded may use usurpation strategy to obtain some of the privileges held by members of other groups. Neo-Weberian Theorist argue that inequality arises from the social close that some groups may face causing them to miss opportunities that may increase their life chances.
Neo-Weberian theory does not place as much emphasis on class and party as Weberian Theory does. Neo-Weberian Theory refers only to the groups within society and the way in which they can exclude others. This can be applied to many different groups within society and evidence of usurpation strategy can be found in various laws that have passed over the years such as the Disability Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.
To an extent, the Neo-Marxist reasons for inequality are the same as the reason given by Weberian Theorists. Memberships to different group within society are often based on class, status and party; the three key factors given by Weberian theorists. Therefore, it can be argued that Neo-Weberian theory gives the same explanations for class inequality as Weberian theory.
Weberian theory is not a reductionist as Marxist theory; Weberian theory looks are factors other that economic factors such as party and status. Weberian theory is a more valid theory of inequality due to the inclusion of these other factors. Both Marxism and Weberian theory share a flaw. Both theories outline why there is inequality in society but they do not offer a solution to the inequality. This limits the usefulness of both theories. Both Marxism and Weberian Theory place heavy emphasis on class when class may not be a huge influence on ones identity in the contemporary UK. Postmodernists would argue that identities are now shaped by consumption, what people buy, and that class is no longer relevant.
A consensus theory is Functionalism. Functionalists state that there is class inequality because society is meritocratic. Davis and Moore argue social stratification is a functional necessity and that everyone else should know their position within society resulting in effective role allocation and performance. This means that all role must be filled, they must be filled by those best able to perform them and the necessary training for them must be undertaken and the roles must be performed conscientiously. In society, people have different innate abilities and talents. Some positions are more functionally important than others so only those few with the necessary skills can fill them. These functionally important positions take a large amount training and loss of income but they have rewards to compensate for such sacrifices. Functionalists argue that class inequality arises from people being allocated the roles within society that suit their talents and skills. This means that via role allocation, some are allocated higher positions than others creating class inequality.
Functionalism is based solely around education and work making it reductionist. Weberian Theory takes various sources of inequality into account such as class status and party. This gives a valid explanation of inequality in contemporary UK. Conflict theories such as Marxism and Weberian Theory can be more deterministic than Consensus Theories. Both Marxism and Weberian Theory argue that certain factors ensure power within society ignoring the individuals’ power to change their situation. Functionalism suggests that people have to power to achieve if they work hard as society is meritocratic. It can be argued that Consensus theories such as Functionalism are less useful at explaining class inequality in the contemporary UK than Conflict theories such as Weberian Theory. Like most theories that attempt to explain class inequality the Functionalist approach has its flaws. Functionalist theory is based largely on the belief that society is meritocratic when this may not be the case. Due to factors such as material deprivation, cultural deprivations and lack of opportunity to go to private schools working class pupils are less likely to achieve than the higher classes. As a result of this, role allocation may simply reproduce the existing class inequalities. As a result of this, Conflict theories are a better way of explaining class inequality than Consensus Theories.
To conclude, Conflict theories are useful in explaining why there it class inequality to an extent. Marxist Theory is relevant to contemporary UK largely in education; pupils are brainwashed by the ruling class ideology so they become submissive workers and fail to see their exploitation. However, this is disputed by sociologists such as Marshall et al who argue that people are aware of the inequality in society and Willis, who states that the education system does not necessarily create to workers desired by the Capitalist system. Marxist theory can also be seen as reductionist and is therefore not a valid explanation of social class inequality in contemporary UK. Weberian Theory can be seen as a more valid explanation of social class inequality within the UK as it looks at the bigger picture. Weberian Theory takes into account factors such as status and party that may lead to inequality. However, Weberian theory may exaggerate the importance of class within society. Both Marxism and Weberian theory do not provide a solution to the problems outlined by the theories. Although Conflict theories are limited in their explanations of class inequality in contemporary UK they provide more useful explanations than consensus theories such as Functionalism. Functionalism places great emphasis on society being meritocratic. This may not be the case which directly disputes the theory.
