society was set up in favour of those with economic power. Marx saw society as
consisting of two main classes, the ruling elite (the capitalists) and the working classes
(the proletariat). Marx saw society as struggle between different groups each with a
different interest or goal. Change would come through conflict, political, legal and
economic. He saw this struggle resulting in a communist system, which he regarded as
the ideal for society. However before these changes were to take place the masses would
have to become aware of their exploitation, awake from their “false consciousness” and
reclaim their power.
The strength of the conflict theory is that it acknowledges the inequalities of society, and
how these inequalities are reinforced over the generations. It illuminates how the ruling
elite manipulate society in order to retain their power, and challenges the functualist view
of society working together as one entity.
If we look at democratisation, functualists would argue that in a democratic society, each
individual gets a vote and that the government was chosen by value consensus, therefore
society is actually run by the people for the benefit of society as a whole. Milibrand
opposes such views on the basis that “economic deprivation is a source of political
deprivation and political deprivation in turn helps to maintain and confirm economic
deprivation”. The major political parties need funds to run for elections, these are
obtained from wealthier members of society who can afford to finance their candidates,
however this support is only in self interest. Also, those who have the greater influence
over society, e.g head of police, military, judiciary, exercise their power to the advantage
of the ruling class. The democratic state is actually used by those that possess the
economic power, to enhance their power, not only economically but also politically. The
media (as owned by the ruling elite) and its power of persuasion, actually persuades the
population that their party is the one to vote for. Hence the exploitation of the proletariat,
as the corporations lobby politicians on reducing workers rights, increasing their hours
and even setting a minimum wage. Capitalist are portrayed as unable to compete in the
global market, because of rules and restrictions imposed on them by the trade unions and
government. Marx also argued that legislation itself was set up to protect the interests of
the ruling elite, therefore further oppressing the proletariat with rules that protect the
employer and further exploit the employee. Miliband argued that the politicians, head
civil servants, judges etc are far removed from the proletariat and are motivated and
promoted by their attachment to the ruling classes. Hence the exploitation of the
proletariat, as the corporations lobby politicians on reducing workers rights, increasing
their hours and even setting a minimum wage. Capitalist are portrayed as unable to
compete in the global market, because of rules and restrictions imposed on them by the
trade unions and government.
To take the conflict theory to another level we can observe the globalization of the world
economy. In the recent World trade Organisation meeting in Cancun, talks broke down
as the world ‘s poorer economies refused to participate on the grounds that the existing
trade treaties exploited their economies. Here we have the IMF(International Monetary
Fund), influenced by the richer countries, agreeing to help these third world developing
countries, on the basis that they would privatize their economies and allow multinational
corporation to run their financial institutions. Therefore, the capitalists of the Western
World retain their dominance, because as they run these institutions they have economic
power in that country and they can exploit the cheap labour and resources of that country.
The weakness of the conflict theory is that it underestimates the level at to which society
will co-operate. As Durkheim observed society reifies itself and will conform. He saw
members of society as being aware that they are interdependent on each other and will
work together for a common goal, survival. Marx did not envision that instead of
revolution, the classes would merge, with an emergence of a middle class, therefore the
two classes would not be so polarized. The state, as Dahrendorf (1929 - ) observed,
created the (social Security) welfare state. This gave some security to the lower classes
that society would meet their basic needs. The governments took the measure to deter
social revolution, by meeting the basic need of the lower classes. Hoping that in making
the poor more comfortable, they would not revolt against the system that provides for
them. The corporations pay taxes and these taxes are then redistributed amongst society,
in the form of social security benefits, education, etc. Corporations are reliant on their
human resources and in order to keep that resource for their own purpose, they also need
to contribute it .
Dahrendorf also stated the influence of Trade Unions, which helped to create a balance of
power . These Trade Unions became negotiators, representing the issues of the workforce
to the employers. The unions with their collective power bargained for better working
conditions for the workforce. The unions exercised their power in the form of strikes,
which often brought production to a halt, emphasizing to the employer that in order to
operate a business you need to listen to the concerns of the workforce. This empowered
the working class, without destroying the capitalist structure. This has progressed to a
point where in some corporations, trade unions, employees and employers have realized
that they to co-operate to make the business succeed as this benefits all parties.
Durkheim states ‘education perpetuates and reinforces the homogenieity by fixing in the
child from the beginning the essential similarities which collective life demand’.
Durheim emphasisizes that in order for society to function, there must be social cohesion
and this is achieved through education. The child is taught about society’s values and
norms, and a respect for authority and also that not adhering to society’s rules have
consequences. Parsons reinforces this point recognizing that school takes over as the
focal socializing agency after the family unit. Durheim saw the survival of society based
on co-operation, and that there must be value consensus amongst its member and in order
to keep society going there must be an educated workforce who can provide a specialized
division of labour. The child learns the basic skills to functions as part of the workforce,
The child learns to socialize with people who are not friends or family. School is a bridge
between, the child as an individual and the adult that emerges as part of a society. Society
through the education system enhances social cohesion as the individuals learn the same
subjects, are subjected to the rules of the school discipline. The school system is built
around being part of a group.
The conflict perspective acknowledges the influence of education but argues that the
value consensus is not of the whole population but of the ruling elite. The children are
taught a curriculum which is chosen by the ruling elite in preparing them for the
workforce. Bowis and Gintis argue that the education of the population provides a
workforce for the capitalists. They argue also that the education system reinforces the
qualities that an employer would want in an employee, i.e to be docile, obedient and
hardworking. The government enforces a national curriculum which states as its aim to
modify the curriculum to meet the demands of the employers. The child is disciplined
and rewarded on the basis of behaviour of which the school deems as desirable. They
argue that the education system does not acheive equality.
The conflict perspective sees the education system as further enforcing the existing
social system. The differences are even more visible when it comes to tertiary education,
where the financial position of the family determines whether a child goes on to further
education. Even with free tuition fees, etc, the child still has to provide for itself and
could become a financial burden on the family unit, as opposed to its wealthier
colleagues whose family can support its tertiary education. This furthers the financial
divide as those that go on to further education gain more specialized skills and therefore
can demand a higher salary.
..
The conflict theory shows a different perspective on society and balances the
functionalist view of society moving forward in integration. The perspective identifies the
differences between the classes, and how these conflicts drive society. It highlights the
dominance of the ruling elite over the labour force. We see how the education system
upholds the values and belief of the ruling elite. We can see how this exploitation does
not only start in the workforce, but is consciously installed from the pre-school years. By
acknowledging these conflicts, society can then readjust itself to cater for the needs of its
members.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
E.C.Cuff, W.W. Sharrock and D.W. Francis Perspectives in Sociology.
London, Routledge, 1992. pp.88-92
M.Haralambos and M Holborn Sociology: Themes and Perspectives
London, Harper Collins 1996 Ch 12 pp 726-744.
