• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11

Who won their debate - Miliband or Poulantzas?

Extracts from this document...


WHO WON THEIR DEBATE - MILIBAND OR POULANTZAS? The debate between Miliband and Poulantzas revolves around the difference between the basic ontological positions behind methodological individualism and methodological collectivism, which affect the ways in which they approached the question of whether, 'Is there still a Ruling Class?'. In their widely publicised exchange Miliband and Poulantzas debated 'the important questions of method and substance which Miliband's book (The State in Capitalist Society) raised for Marxist theory.' [Blackburn, 1973:238] In his book Miliband presented an account of the relationship between the state and the capitalist economy and class structures in such a society. This text was not aimed at advancing political science beyond where pluralist, elitist and Marxist analysis had previously taken it. It was Miliband's contribution to the delegitimisation of the capitalist state. Although in his article Poulantzas does point out the many merits of Miliband's book, he however agrees to disagree. He criticises Miliband's approach in general. Both these men study social stratification, but Miliband investigates social stratification by observing the different class members and their actions. Poulantzas on the other hand, studies social stratification through observing the surface manifestations of institutional relationships. ...read more.


These elites consisted a single homogenous ruling class. At the same time, methodological individualism was also reducionist because it assumes that every institution can be reduced to individuals even when they are apparently non-people such as - state, army etc, but they too can be reduced to a string of individuals. Similarly the state, bureaucracy will be seen to be having interpersonal relationships between its members from the ties between them mentioned earlier. As Miliband says in 'The State in a Capitalist Society', the bureaucratic elites in terms of social origin are all drawn from the worlds of business, property or professional middle classes. [Miliband, 1969: 66] The methodological individualism approach is also dispositional. By dispositional, it is meant that 'there is no social trend, which exists, which could not be reversed by those there present provided they had the information and the will - so examine what they think and want.' [Archer, 2004] Miliband in this case reverses the argument that the ruling class does not exist any longer since the managerial revolution. He says that the manager's aims to make profits and hence they fall into the same category as the owners, thus becoming a part of the ruling class themselves. ...read more.


However, methodological individualists often break away from these requirements, as the facts that are used in explanations are not completely individual or dispositional. The predicates often does include, 'statements about the dispositions, beliefs, resources and other inter-relations of individuals' as well as their 'situations...physical resources and environment'. [Watkins, 1971: 270-1] Thus, in social analysis we have to be less concerned with interpersonal relationships, and more with the social contextual relations. Yet, as Watkins argue, 'no social tendency exists which could not be altered if the individuals concerned both wanted to alter it and possessed the appropriate information.' [Watkins, ibid.] Whatever thus be the environmental contexts, they are affected by individuals and individuals are affected by them. Hence, even though methodological individualism and methodological collectivism, in their own rights are extremely important, in my opinion, the best way to study social reality would be to interconnect these two approaches. The debate between Miliband and Poulantzas is one of the most important pieces of research work that have come up in the last decades. However, trying to come to a conclusion to the question of who won their debate is very difficult. Thus, I shall conclude this essay by stating that both these intellectuals are right, but perhaps reconciliation between these two approaches would be the best. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Sociology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Sociology essays

  1. Gender as a form of Social Stratification.

    Karl Marxs gives an explanation of inequality through "the Method of Production". The upper class has the most privilege because they are able to control the distribution of wealth while the working class has the least privilege and reward because they do not control how material reward is produced, so society is all about who controls the most wealth.

  2. What makes debate surrounding masculinity so contentious?

    Anatomy is proof of being a man. Being a man takes on a universal status. Aggression, reason, a need for control, competitiveness, and emotional reticence are thought to be "natural" attributes for a man. Thus the positivist approach ascribes innate "masculine" traits to men.

  1. The classical and positivist approaches to criminological theory

    Inevitably it led to the prediction of the criminal, based on the certain characteristics and social concepts within which he was immersed. The likelihood of committing crime was explored, and was thought predictable by researchers such as Guerry and Quetelet.

  2. evaluation of methods

    the culture of the new generation of Indian children in UK has changed. Just from my pilot study I had a variety of answers which I think would help me to support my sociological context. 'From your experience what would you prefer?'

  1. Evaluation of the difference between Positivist and Interpretivist methodologies

    It is a "real" thing which exists outside of its members. For the interpretivist however, it is much more difficult to describe a society which is the outcome of interpretation as somehow "true" or "real" in the way social theorists conceive of their social structures."[4] Word Count = 1218 1

  2. The Corporate Social Responsibility Debate

    It is in the profit-seeking organisation's interests to accommodate to society's idea of social responsibility. For example, resource companies engaged in community-minded projects may find it easier to obtain their social licence to operate and expand because the public are more willing to grant them consent.

  1. Gender Studies

    students in America with LIS students in India. Students are generally used for such studies because their values are as important to the researcher as those of the practitioners.55 An added advantage of surveying students is an immediate feedback.56 The LIS students are adults when they enroll for professional education.

  2. How Have Socialists Sought To Promote Collectivism

    Rather they believe that human nature is 'plastic', moulded by the experiences and circumstances of social life .

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work