Compare and Contrast Marx and Weber's view on Stratification

200301327

Sociology Essay for Nisrine Mansour

Compare and Contrast Marx and Weber’s view on Stratification

The grouping of people together according to their status within society in relation to the groups they belong to is as old as society itself. Social stratification has been the starting point of many arguments about how and why societies are divided. Sociologists speak of social stratification to describe inequalities that exist between individuals and groups within human societies. Often stratification is thought of in terms of assets and property, but it can occur on the basis of other attributes, such as gender, age or religious affiliation.

Karl Marx and Max Weber are two of the most important writers of their times. Their work laid the foundations for many contemporary writers today. In the field of social stratification, there are both similarities and differences in their work. Marx believed that in all stratified societies there are two major social groups: a ruling class and a subject class. Furthermore he states that the principle difference between these groups is the ownership and control of the means of production, which causes a conflict of interest between the two classes. Weber did not disagree with this viewpoint but saw important differences in the market situation of the property less groups in society and he believed that there exists a more complex interaction of factors when it comes to determining social stratification than Marx claimed.

For Marx, systems of stratification derive from the interaction of social groups to the means of production. Marx used the term ‘class’ to refer to the main strata in all stratification systems. He believed a class is a social group whose members share the same relationship to that means of production.

In a feudal epoch, there are two main classes distinguished by their relationship to the land, which is the central part of the means of production in an agricultural society. They are the feudal nobility who own the land, and the land serfs who work the land. Similarly, in a capitalist era, there are two main classes: the bourgeoisie who own the means of production, and the proletariat whose members own only their labour which they hire to the bourgeoisie in return for wages.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Marx made a clear distinction between a ‘class in itself’ and a ‘class for itself’. A class in itself is simply a social group whose members share the same relationship to the means of production. Marx argued that a social group only becomes a class when it becomes a class for itself. At this juncture, its members have class consciousness (full awareness of the true situation) and class solidarity. Members of a class will develop a common identity, recognise their shared interests and unite, so creating class solidarity they may then come to the realisation that only with collective action ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

From a Marxist viewpoint, the relationship between the two social classes is one of mutual dependence and conflict. Thus in a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie and proletariat are dependent upon each other. One cannot exist without the other. Labourers must sell their labour in order to make a living, as they do not own part of the means of production and lack the means to produce goods autonomously. They are therefore dependent on the capitalists for their livelihood. The capitalists, as non-producers, are dependent on the labourers, since, without them, there would be no production. However, the mutual dependency of the two classes is not a relationship of equal or symmetrical reciprocity. Instead, it is a relationship of exploiter and exploited. In particular, the ruling class is gaining at the expense of the subject class and there is therefore a conflict of interest between them.

Marx believed that the class struggle was the driving force of social change. He felt that the basic contradictions contained in a capitalist economic system would lead to its eventual destruction. The proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production, which he saw as the source of power. Property would be communally owned and, since all members of society would now share the same relationship to the means of production, a classless society would result.

If we forget the basic contradictions of a capitalist society, Marx believed that there were elements in the natural development of a capitalist economy that would accelerate its downfall-these factors would result in the polarization of the two main classes. I.e. the gap between those who own the means of production and those who work on it would widen and become greater and greater.

The work of Max Weber represents one of the most important developments in stratification theory since Marx. Like Marx, Weber saw class in economic terms. He believed that classes develop in market economies in which individuals compete for economic gain. For Weber, a class is a group of individuals who share a similar position in the market economy and by virtue of that receive comparable economic rewards. Their market situation will directly affect their chances of obtaining those things defined as sought-after in society such as higher education, good quality housing and health care.

However, Weber went on to develop a multifaceted and more intricate view of society. Social stratification is not merely a matter of class. Two further aspects also shape it: status and party. These three overlapping elements of stratification produce a vast number of potential positions within society, rather than the more rigid bipolar model, which Marx projected. According to Weber, social divisions derive not only from control or lack of control of the means of production, but from economic differences, which have nothing directly to do with property.

Status in Weber’s theory refers to differences between social groups in the social honour or prestige they are accorded by others. In traditional societies, status was often determined on the basis of first-hand knowledge of a person gained through numerous interactions in different contexts over a period of years. Over time, this classification has become difficult and instead, according to Weber, status came to be expressed through people’s styles of life. This is clearly demonstrated in the case of say a priest who incurs automatic status due to the nature of his occupation.

While Marx believed status distinctions are the result of class divisions in society, Weber argued that status often varies independently of class divisions. Possession of wealth normally tends to confer high status, but the two are not synonymous.

Weber also indicated that party formation is also an important part of stratification as it can influence it independently of class and status. Party defines a group of individuals who work mutually because they have common backgrounds, aims or interests. Often a party works in an organised manner towards a specific objective, which is in the interest of the party’s members. On the other hand, Marx tended to explain both status differences and party organisations in terms of class.

In contrast to Marx, Weber saw no evidence to support Marx’s claim of the polarization of classes. He never rejected the idea that the number of bourgeoisie was falling due to the existence of large multi-national companies but he argued that the ‘middle class’ inflates rather than deflates as capitalism develops. Thus Weber saw a diversification of the middle class, rather than a polarization.

He also discarded the view shared by many Marxists, of the inevitability of the proletarian revolt. He saw no motive why those sharing similar class situations would necessarily develop a common identity and take collective action to further those interests.

Weber’s analysis of classes, status groups and parties suggest that no single theory can point and explain social stratification. The interplay of class, status and party in the formation of social groups is complex and variable and must be examined in an historical and cultural context. Marx attempted to reduce all forms inequality to social class and argued that classes formed the only significant groups in society. To the contrary, Weber argued that there exists a more complex interaction of factors when it comes to determining social stratification.

It is important to realise that there have been many attempts at explaining social stratification since both Marx and Weber formulated their work. Both Marx and Weber were instrumental in starting the ongoing and increasingly fractured debate concerning social stratification. Contemporary writers have used their writings as a basis for understanding modern social divisions. Both the analysis of gender divisions and race divisions have taken on the views of the above classic theorists, thus trying to undermine the generally accepted view that class and other social divisions are a functional necessity in modern western societies, a false view which ascribes degrees of success via a reward system based upon ones occupational achievements. Social stratification will continue to be a greatly debated matter, but what is clear is that the works of both Karl Marx and Max Weber are instrumental in understanding the key elements to the debate and will provide the fundamental grounding for years to come.