Competing And Complementing Foundations, Goals, And Visions Laid Out In Marxist And Weberian Theories

JustinLamoureuxProf.StarmanSOC512-SociologicalTheory1October2023SingleIdea,DoubleLens:CompetingandComplementingFoundations,Goals,andV isionsLaidOutinMarxistandW eberianTheoriesClassicaltheoryisanimportantconcept.Itcarrieswithoutpricefar -reachingimplicationsforunderstandingthedevelopmentofcapitalism,andhowpowermanifestsitselfthroughdif ferentrungsofsociety .NophilosophersshedlightonthissociologicalconceptinamoreconstructivevainthanKarlMarxandMaxW eber .Maintainingapassionateemphasisonthedeeppersistenceofclassconflict,Marxhaslongbeenregardedashavingchampionedatheorybasedonnotionsofusvs.them.W eber ,meanwhile,despitesharingsomebasicviewpointswithMarx,adoptedalessmonolithicperspective:hechosetoblameexistentialdivisionsandinequalitiesonpurelycircumstantialfactorsthatunderscoredtheindividualisticnatureofone slifepredicament.Relativelystarkdif ferencesinopinionregardingthebasisoftheirfundamentalvisiondriveadeeperwedgebetweenthetwosociologicaltheorists.Nevertheless,bothprovidevitallyimportantframesofreferenceforinterpretingtheroleofthestateasakeysocialinstitution.MarxandW eberholdcontrastingviewsregardingthefoundationsandgoalsoftheirsociologicaltheories,asMarxhighlightsthesignificanceofclassstrugglewhileW eberconcentratesonmultifacetedpolarities:nevertheless,bothprovidevaluableinsightsonsocialdif ferentiationandhierarchiesthatarebeneficialforanalyzingthefunctionalityofanessentialsocietalestablishment.Fundamentallyspeaking,Marxwasthepromulgatorofasociologicaltheoryrootedinclassconflictbetweentwodistinctsocialgroups.Inacapitalistsociety ,thismarkerofdistinctionisunderstoodthroughthelensofbour geoisieandproletariatclasses.One sstatusineithermutuallyhostilecampiswhollydeterminedbytheirrelationshipwiththemeansofproduction:thebour geoisieowns(andthereforecontr ols)thefactoryandtools,whiletheproletariatsimplyoperatesthemasameansofsellingtheirlabor(Marx1848,ascitedinGarner&Hancock,2014).Thrivingonaschoolofgreedfosteredbytheneedsofaconstantlyexpandingmarket,thebour geoisieascendtothepositionofadominantgroupbytreatingallpeopleorthingsascommodities.Thispracticeofconceptualizingintermsthatareinherentlymonetarylaysthefoundationforaninequitablesystembasedonthepracticeofhabitualextractionandexploitation:itprovidesajustificationforpayingworkerslessfortheirlaborthanitsactualvalue.Consequently ,thebour geoisiecanalienatetheproletariatfromtheendproduct,orpurposeoftheirwork.Thiskeepsworkersinastateofisolationfromthemselvesandeachother .Indeed,Marxwashardlythesolephilosopherofhistimewhosawasocietyfraughtwithsocialdisconnect.W eberascribedtoviewstheorizingofasocietyfraughtwithnonlineardivisionsandinequalitythataccountforabroadunderstandingofindividualcircumstances.Heconsideredinequalitiestoexistwithinthreedimensions:class,status,andparty(W eber1922,ascitedinGarner&Hancock,2014).One sclassisdeterminedalmostentirelybytheireconomicstanding:thatis,thekind-andamount-ofpropertytheyown.Thismeansalandlordwhoownsseveralbuildings(i.e.realestate)andcontrolsanextensivestockportfoliowillbelongtoahigherclassthanhistenantwhorentsoneoftheseapartmentsandonlyhastotheirnameajarcontainingfiftydollarsincash.Status,meanwhile,stemslar gelyfromthehonorandprestigetheyhaveaccruedwithinvarioussocialrealms.Themostgeneralcharacteristicsofone sstatusincludetheirfriendshipcirclesandprofession:inotherwords,adoctorwhoregularlygetstogetherwithcelebritiesorprofessionalathletesisinevitablygoingtopossessahigherlevelofstatusthanafastfoodworkerwhoprimarilysocializeswithhomelesspeoplelivingonthestreets.Party ,ontheotherhand,ischaracterizedbytheacquisition(orpossession)ofsocialpower .Thisisnotnecessarilylimitedtoapoliticalcontext,ascommonterminologywouldsuggest:rather ,one spartymostcommonlyalludestotheirconnectionswithinastate,club,oranysocialcommunity .W ebermeasuresthestrengthandef ficacyoftheseconnectionsintheabilitytoimposeone swillinthatgivencircumstanceorsetting(W eber1922,ascitedinGarner&Hancock,2014).Bythatlogic,apersonwhogolfswithjudgesorlawyerseachweekendislikelytohaveagreaterdegreeofpowerindecidingcourtroomcasesthansomeonewhodoesnotknowanybodyemployedwithinthelegalsystem.ThedimensionsofinequalitythatW eberoutlinesarebynomeansmutuallyexclusive:someonewhobelongstoaloweconomicclasscanstillenjoyaprominentsocialstatuswithintheircommunity .Thatseveralcomponentsofone slifeplayaconcurrentandinstrumentalroleindeterminingtheirsocietalpositionunderscoresthetremendousextentofambiguityforwhichW eberiantheoryisundoubtedlybestknown.Numeroussimilaritiesanddif ferencescanbeidentifiedbetweenMarxistandW eberianschoolsofthought.SociologicaltheoriesespousedbyMarxandW eberenjoyparallelsintheirfundamentalstructure,butroutinelydiver geintheirbeliefsregardingtheoriginandpurposeofsuchvisions.Theessenceofanysemblancebetweenthetwocanbefoundintheirconsensusthatallsocietiesaredividedalongthelinesofsocialclass(Starman,2023).ThoughW eber stakeonthebasisofsaiddivisionsismarkedbyagreaterdegreeofambiguity ,bothphilosophersar guethatindividualsfindtheirplaceinsocietydependentonhowmuchproperty-orcapital-theypossessinagivenrealm.Whetherthisperceptionisrootedstrictlyineconomics-asMarxwouldhypothesize-orisalsocoupledwithadditionalfactorsrelatedtoone sinterpersonalconnections,boththeoristssurmisethateveryoneisrankedinvaluebasedonwhattheyar epr oventohave.Butthisiswhereanysimilaritiesbetweenthetwocease.WhereasMarxviewedtheemer genceofcapitalismasaresultofclassconflictscoincidingwithtechnologicaladvancementsandtheonsetofglobalization,W eberaccreditedthisshifttothewidespreadnatureofprotestantideals.Hedismissesthepurelysecularexplanationof feredbyMarxwithaconvictionthatcapitalistemphasisonhardworkisdirectlycorrelatedwiththeso-calledprotestantethic:adeeplyheldbeliefthatonemustworkhardtopleaseGodbecausetheirjobisef fectivelyareligiouscalling(W eber ,1958).Theirlackoffaithinheavenlymiracleswouldhavecompelledmanyprotestantstoinvesttheirener gyandresourcesinscientificinquiryandtechnologicaldevelopment:crucialpillarsofacapitalistsociety .WhileMarxseesacapitalisteconomyastheveryfoundationofsociety ,W eberseekstodownplayitsessence:heatteststhatsucheconomicsaremerelyasideef fectofculturaltenets.Further ,thetwodif fergreatlyinwhattheyconsidertobethemeritofclassdivisions:Marxfindsthesedistinctionsabhorrent,feelingtheyservenopurposeotherthantoturnindividualsagainsteachother .W eber ,ontheotherhand,maintainsthatclasssituationsareneededtosatisfyaneedforrationality:thatis,arelationshipbetweenideasandtheactionstheyinfluence(W eber1922,ascitedinGarner&Hancock,2014).Foracapitalisteconomytoflourish,thereneedstobeaclassthatproducesgoodsandaclassthatsellsthem.W ithoutthiscommunalaction-orbehaviororientedtowardsasenseofbelongingtogether-suchidealswouldnevermaterializeandtheinstitutionssupportingthemwouldceasetofunction.Whentakenatfacevalue,MarxandW eberseemtobecutfromanidenticalcloth:theybothspeakofasocietydividedintogroupsofpeopleinherentlyopposedtoeachotherbyvirtueoffactorsbeyondtheircontrol.Beneaththesurface,however ,thetwoarepolaroppositesakintonightandday:itseemsunlikelytheseinfluentialphilosopherscouldeverreconciletheirdif ferencesovertheimpactsuchconceptshaveonsociety ,andwhatoverarchingfactorsallowthemtobesustained.Thesephilosopherscontributeinvaluableperspectivesthatcarryimplicationswellbeyondthemeaningofclassdivisions.Inparticular ,MarxistandW eberiantheoriesbothof ferinvaluableperspectivesonsocialdistinctionsandhierarchiesthatcouldbeappliedtohelpexplainthefunctionalityofthestateasasocialinstitution.W eberattributesthecruxofstatepowertothelegitimacyendowedbydif ferenttypesofauthority .Justasheidentifiesvaryingdimensionsofsocietalinequality ,histheorypointstotheexistenceofauthorityinnumerouscontexts:specifically ,intraditional,charismatic,andlegal-rationalforms(Starman,2023).T raditionalauthorityislegitimizedmostlythroughitsemphasisoncustomandthesanctityofcontinuousroutines.Anexamplecommonlyinvokedbystateof ficialsisthepeacefultransferofpowerbetweenof ficeholders:inademocraticsociety ,thisislar gelyupheldandvalidatedonthepremisethatwevealwaysdoneitthisway .Charismaticauthorityisbasedprimarilyonindividualtraitswhichattractfollowers,andprovidelegitimacythroughaconveyedsenseofpersonalaf finity .IfW eberstilllivedtoday ,hewouldalmostcertainlypointtothe1960presidentialdebatebetweenJohnF .KennedyandRichardNixontoillustratethispoint:whereasKennedy srelaxedbehavioronstageallowedhimtoconnectef fortlesslywiththeiraudience,Nixon sawkwardnessandrelativelycolddemeanoronlyhinderedhispopularityamongthecrowd.Legal-rationalauthoritygainslegitimacyfromlaws:thatis,writtenrulesandregulations.Thebasisofsuchauthorityrestsinthepositionthatsomeoneholds,insteadoffromtheindividualthemself.Oneself-explanatorymodelcanbefoundintheof ficeofthepresidency:JoeBidengetshisauthorityfromthelegal(andrational)powersvestedintheexecutivebranchbytheconstitution,andwillforsakethissovereigntywhenheleavesof fice.Thisformofauthorityalsowarrantspowertospecificbureaucraticstructures,thehierarchyofwhichW eberbelievedwaspivotaltoensuringthestatecouldinfluenceitsprescribedactions.AccordingtoMarx,thestateisbestunderstoodinsocialratherthanpoliticalterms:thebour geoisieestablishthemselvesasthedefactoheadsofstatebyinstitutingmanufacturedsocialroles.Definingthepurposeofindividualsintermssuchaslandlordorpawnbrokercanhelpensuretheproletariatisfurtheroppressedbeyondtherealmofmonetarycapital(Marx1848,ascitedinGarner&Hancock,2014).Inadditiontodelegatingpoliticalpower ,theseso-calledrolesmakeiteasierforthebour geoisietodefinethemainstreamvaluesandideasofsociety:inMarxism,thistranslatesintoanideologyofdominancethatseekstojustifyinequalitiesbetweenthetwosocialclasses.Languagefocusedonhardworkandequalopportunitycreateanallusionofunfetteredfairnessthatequatesthehigherstatusofabour geoisietosurvivalofthefittest,whilelikeningthelowerstatusofaproletariattoaself-inflictedwound.Whileitiscertainlytruethatsuchnotionsapplyforemosttosocietyfromageneralperspective,theconnotationsofMarxistandW eberianrespectivephilosophiesforastate sinstitutionalbehaviorareself-evident.Thesignificanceofhierarchiesclearlyoutlineshowagovernmentremainssuf ficientovertime,andcontinuouslyaf firmsitsmandatetopower .Similarly ,thepresenceofuniquesocialpositionsandaccreditationsof ferastrongjustificationfortheinequalitiesthatexistbetweenthestateandotherinstitutionsorthegeneralpopulation.OnecouldlearnalotfromMarxandW eberregardingtheintricaciesofclassicaltheory .Noneof feradeeperormoremeaningfulperspectiveregardingtheevolutionofsocietyintoabastionofcapitalistideals.Marx sunwaveringcommitmenttohighlightingtheprofoundenduranceofclassconflicthandilyexplainswhytheworkingclassfindsitselfinapositioninherentlysubordinatetothosecontrollingthemeansofproduction.Onthecontrary ,W ebercanhelpmakesenseofwhytheindividualmightyieldahighersocialstatusorgreaterpowerthananother ,despitehaving(ormaking)lessmoney .Bylookingatboththeoriesconcurrently ,onemightgainahelpfulinklingofhowareligiousorsecularlensmightbeappliedinsimilarproportionstosuchaconcept-evenifeachrequiresadif ferentapproachtounderstandingthe(ir)rationalityofsuchthings.Eachtheoristalsohasmuchtoof ferindemonstratingthemanifestationofauthorityinastatethroughsocialthinkingandprescriptionofsocietalroles.Indeed,despitesomebasicbasicsimilarities,MarxandW eberhavediver gentperspectiveswhenitcomestotheunderlyingprinciplesandobjectivesoftheirsociologicaltheories.WhileMarxemphasizestheimportanceofclassidentitytocharacterizingpeopleasbelongingtoahigherorlowergroup,W eberchoosestoinvokethecomplexitiesofsocialandeconomicfootingastheycompetewitheachothertomakesuchdeterminations.Thatsaid,boththeoristsmakeindeliblecontributionstoclassifyingthemostfundamentalaspectsofthestateasbeingatrademarksocialinstitution.W orkCited:Garner ,R.,&BlackHawkHancock.(2014).SocialTheory:ContinuityandConfr ontation:AReader .UniversityofT orontoPress;T oronto.Marx,K.,&Engels,F .(1848).CommunistManifesto.JEBur ghard.UniversityofT orontoPress;T oronto.Starman,T .SociologicalTheory:Intr o&Marx.[PowerPointSlides].Starman,T .SociologicalTheory:W eber .[PowerPointSlides].W eber ,M.(1922).Economyandsociety:Anoutlineofinterpr etivesociology.UniversityOfCaliforniaPress.