|
Research
Paper on Marx vs. Weber: Conflicting
Theories
The study of social science, that
is the scientific investigation into the social relations and
social phenomena of people, has been an area of interest to
thinkers throughout recent history. However, before one can
engage in the study of such science, it is necessary to first
ascertain one fundamental clarification, the difference between
the individual and society.
This distinction is not a simple one. It has, in fact, been the
source of much debate amongst social scientists since Auquote
Comte first studied this discipline in 1826. It is clear that
the two identities are interdependent, but the exact nature of
this relationship has eluded all theorists who have attempted to
solve this problem. Is society a collection of individuals, or
are individuals a part of society? Amongst the philosophers who
have contributed to this controversy are Thomas Hobbes, and John
Locke. While the debate between these two centred on
politics, their theories on the state of nature give unique
insight into what individuals are and how society is formed.
Need a custom research paper? we can write custom research papers for you!
While their views on the natural state of man are opposed, the
underlying concept is the same. Hobbes believed that mankind, by
nature, is evil, and in this state all men are governed by
natural laws. These laws consist, primarily, of justice and
equity. Living in this state of nature is so horrible, that men
join together and agree to be ruled by a common leader.
Contrarily, Locke believes that man, by nature, is good, but
enters into society to preserve and regulate people's rights to
own and enjoy property.
The fundamental principle that these two are attempting to make
evident is that individuals act according to their nature, and
it is only in a society that individuals can interrelate.In the
late 1800's, Max Weber added his insight into this discussion.
He essentially agreed with Hobbes and Locke. His belief was that
the individual was the unit of the larger society, and it is
through this unit that social behavior is studied. Weber
believed that individuals interact 'subjectively' in society. By
this he meant that all people assign meaning and value to
objects or actions, and it is only through the identification of
these actions that we are able to relate. For example, if you
were to ask my opinion on a painting, and I responded only by
pointing my thumb up, you would know that I appreciate the
artwork. It is in this same way that he explains relationships.
He believes that we assign special meaning to the actions of
others. It is the interpretation of these special meanings that
define our social relationships.
When further analyzing this, Weber discovered that not all
actions have meaning, some actions have different meanings at
different times, and some actions have meaning only some of the
time. For example, pacing could mean that one is bored, or it
could mean that one is anxious. Or take the example of walking
in a crowd, this may have no meaning, but if you see some one
you know in the crowd, this walk suddenly becomes important. In
fact, it is this, which makes us human. Our ability to act on
the basis of subjectivity rather than by pure instinct is what
separates us from the animals. Although other animals my assign
meaning to actions, we treat these behaviors, or social facts,
as things, not just ideas.
Weber believes that it is the individual, not the society, which
acts in the world. The people are what make the 'world turn'.
Labor, production, and economy, all of which are clearly run by
individuals, were the basis of his study of individuals in
society. He believes that society fosters the existence of
individuals. It is there that people can succeed or fail. He
sees the goal of the individual is to obtain power. This power
is the ability to overcome the subjectivity of others. The more
complex society becomes, the more it is necessary to have people
with power to provide rational authority over all individuals
within the society.
Need a custom research paper? we can write custom research papers for you!
Another prominent thinker who lent his expertise to this debate
was Karl Marx. With Marx, along with Emile Durkheim, we see a
completely different notion of the individual and society. While
Hobbes, Locke, and Weber believed that the individual is what
composes society, Marx and Durkheim are moving towards the
theory that possibly society is what forms the individual.
Marx believes that the nature of the individual is an explicit
representation of the nature that society is in at the time. He
believes that man is inherently good, however, the individual's
disposition often becomes confused with the state that he is
living in. For example, a person who is generally good-natured
may seem to be corrupt if living in a society where violence is
rampant. He argues that individuals are dependant on society for
survival, not, as Weber would have you believe, that society is
dependant on the individual. Marx states that individuals depend
entirely on the economic basis of their society. If the economy
does well, the society will do well, and the individuals will
prosper. If the economy falls, society will deteriorate, and the
individuals will suffer.
Marx believes that society is held together, not by individuals,
but by scientific laws of matter. The rudimentary basis of
society is material production, which is the basis for his most
famous work on class structures. Holding similar views to Marx
is Emile Durkheim and his belief that society is what defines
man. He theorizes that individuals are built on a sense of
belonging, and that it is the society, which provides that
belonging. His work on suicide is a strong example of this. He
felt that people needed to belong to, and know the norms of, a
group. In his mind this need was so great that people would
commit suicide over it.
Description
Why is it important for scholars, and especially political
scientists, to study and understand the ideas of Karl Marx and
Max Weber? For Marx the answer is obvious, he was arguably one
of the most influential human beings since Jesus Christ. Even
one hundred years after Marx's death, Americans were militarily
and monetarily supporting capitalist dictatorships and
capitalist contras in third world countries precisely because of
our fear of Marxian ideas. Following Marx's wishes to dismantled
capitalism came the need for capitalists to justify their
system. This could only begin by analyzing the origins of
industrialization, which was related to capitalist order. After
theories of climatic and colonial determinism, Weber wrote his
still controversial claim that Protestantism precipitated
industrialization. The importance of these two philosophers in
the field of capitalistic thought makes it quite reasonable to
contrast their thoughts and discover what is to be learned from
this. Besides the idea of capitalist dehumanization, the two
agree on very little. Therefore, the best contrast will
juxtapose their main ideas. Each has his own conception of
history, while both emphasize differing aspects of the
significance of the origins of capitalism and the "end" of
history; also, Marx and Weber differ in respect to their views
on the forces proliferating the capitalist mindset of modern
workers.
According to Marx, history is both linear and dialectical.
Linear in the sense that history is constantly progressing and
thus has a beginning and an end. History is dialectical in that
he believes tension between ideas causes new, compromised ideals
to emerge. Basically, a first idea (thesis) conflicts with a
second idea (antithesis), which eventually evolves into a third
idea (synthesis) that is a combination of both. Hegel had used
this technique in explaining the history of ideas, but Marx was
the first to use a dialectic explanation of material history.
Need a custom research paper? we can write custom research papers for you!
Also, it is important to note that
because Marx believed that being causes consciousness instead of
vice versa, the conflicting ideas of history have thus been the
conflicting ideas of different social classes. The first stage
of history (also the first thesis) is known as a tribal or a
hunter/gatherer society, in which society is hierarchical and
communal at the same time. Soon, those at the top of the
hierarchy are corrupted and use their power to enslave the
bottom rung of society. This second stage of history is referred
to as an ancient communal or slave society. This synthesis
emerged from the thesis of communal ownership and the antithesis
of private property in the form of slavery. The class antagonism
here is between slave and owner. Eventually, the antithesis of
ideas based on increased freedom and non-human private property
causes the emergence of the third stage of history, feudalism.
The class antagonism here is between the feudal serf and lord.
The new thesis of the oppressed serf is combated by its
antithesis, the revolutionary serf. The synthesis turns the serf
into the bourgeois who in turn oppresses the proletariat in the
fourth stage of history known as capitalism. Finally, an
antithesis of absolute equality will repel the capitalist thesis
and create the synthesis of communism. This is the fifth and
final stage of history. By this, Marx means that there will
never be an antithesis to contradict this new thesis, hence the
end of class struggle and the end of history according to the
Marxian definition. (Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe, p.
47-54, 65-71, 85-97,105-148)
For Max Weber as opposed to Marx, history is seen as more
complex in one sense, and less in another. He believes history
is too complex to be explained and characterized by any linear
method. His view on history could be said to be circular in
theory, because he has doubts as to whether or not we will
continually progress, we could just as easily regress to a more
backward time in history. So, although Weber does not believe in
simplistic historical paradigms, his view is more simplistic
than the Marxian in another sense because he only differentiates
between two stages in history. Weber made this differentiation
based on his belief that the development of industrialization
was the most important historical event in the history of
mankind. Thus, his two stages of history are pre-modern and
post-modern. The fundamental difference between these two
periods is that the pre-modern man worked to live, while the
post-modern man lived to work. Weber gives the example of piece
rates in pre-modern times to illustrate this difference. "A man,
who at the rate of 1 mark per acre mowed 2 ½ acres per day and
earned 2 ½ marks, when the rate was raised to 1.25 marks per
acre mowed, not 3 acres, as he might have easily done, thus
earning 3.75 marks, but only 2 acres, so that he could still
earn the 2 ½ marks to which he was accustomed." To the
pre-modern man, work was used as a means to living, anything
more was seen as superfluous and absurd. It is only in the
modern times that full time work is seen as an end in itself
with anything less attracting condemnation. To Weber,
industrialization was correlated with this new philosophy of
life, but what then, caused this shift? (Routledge, Simon pp.
1-48) (Dean, M. pp. ix-xxxv, 54-68, 209-213
Findings of the Research
This is a question of determinism, what determined this new way
of life? Marx's deterministic ideas were based on those of
Hegel, who said that ideas are the determining factor of life.
Marx disagreed, flipped Hegel on his head, and theorized that
life is what determines ideas, or that being creates
consciousness as was stated above. This is typically known as
economic or historical determinism. A common example used to
explain this is America's distrust in communism. We believe that
communism could never work because people are naturally
competitive and that people need material incentives to reach
their full potential. Marx would propose that this person's
beliefs are not his own, but those of his society, and have been
economically determined. Strength would be given to this
argument by an example of a communist who believed with all his
heart that people are naturally competitive and that the
greatest incentive is that of helping your fellow comrade. It is
important to note that this is not necessarily the result of
blatant propagandizing, but through conscious and unconscious
observation of the culture in question. Television, societal
praise and punishment, education, law, morals, art, politics,
bureaucracy, and state structure all openly influence a
citizen's views, although it seems subliminal because it occurs
without notice. Marx asserts that all of these factors add up to
form the superstructure of ones community and determine every
last idea. Hence, it was the current culture along with the
institutions in place that allowed for the rise of capitalism. (Routledge,
pp. 58-95)
Need a custom research paper? we can write custom research papers for you!
Marx's idea of the alienation of the worker can thus be seen as
interconnected with Weber's conception of the immersion into
work by the Protestant. However, this agreement on the negatives
of capitalism consists of nearly all that Marx and Weber have in
common. Marx believes that it is possible to develop a better
system, while Weber remains pessimistically contented with this
necessary evil. Both have fairly different views about the order
and direction or history, while agreeing that the creation of
industrialization and capitalism is the major event in the
history of mankind. In this, they disagree about the
determinism, but Weber does acknowledge that there is no one
answer to this question, an interaction of determinisms is the
likely complex answer to an extremely complex question. The same
approach should be used in studying these two philosophers,
neither is completely right, but both pave the way for future
study by allowing new questions to surface. It is in asking and
answering these questions that we shall see the importance of
the contributions of Marx and Weber.
References
Brubaker, Rogers. 1984. The Limits of Rationality. An Essay on
the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber.
London: Routledge, pp. 1-48. Simon, Lawrence H. ed. 1994.
Karl Marx. Selected Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing,
pp. ix-xxxv, 54-68, 209-213. Dean, M. 1994.
Critical and Effective Histories. Foucault's Methods and
Historical Sociology. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 58-95.
Weber, Max. 1978.
Economy and Society. (ed. by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich).
Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 24-26, 197-109,
956-1005.
Grindle, Merilee. ed. 1980. Politics and Policy Implementation
in the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pp. 3-39. Habermas, Jürgen. 1971.
Toward A Rational Society. Student Protest, Science and
Politics. London: Heinemann, pp. 81-122. Hirsch, P. 1993.
Political Economy of Environment in Thailand. Manila: J
Journal of Contemporary Asia Publishers, pp. 14-33,103-118.
Need a custom research paper? we can write custom research papers for you!
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe.
1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso, pp. 47-54,
65-71, 85-97,
105-148. Lohmann, L. 1996. `Freedom to plant. Indonesia and
Thailand in a globalizing pulp and paper industry', in: Parnwell,
M.J.G. and Bryant, R.L. eds. Environmental Change in South-East
Asia.
People, Politics and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge,
pp. 23-48. Mitchell, M. 1998. `The political economy of Mekong
Basin development', in: Hirsch, P. and Warren C. eds. The
Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia. Resources and
Resistance. London: Routledge, pp. 71-89. Moore, D. 1993.
`Marxism, Culture and Political Ecology. Environmental struggles
in Zimbabwe's Eastern Highlands', pp. 125-147. in Peet, R. and
Watts, M. eds. 1996. Liberation Ecologies, environment,
development and social movements. O'Connor, J. 1989.
`Uneven and combined development and ecological crisis: a
theoretical introduction', Race & Class, 30 (3): 1-13. Rose, N.
and Miller, P. 1992. 'Political power beyond the State:
problematics of government', British Journal of Sociology, 43
(2): 173-205. Sachs, W. 1993.
`Global Ecology and the Shadow of `Development'', in Sachs. W.
ed. Global Ecology. A New Arena of Political Conflict. London:
Zed Books, pp. 3-21. Simon, Lawrence H. ed. 1994. Karl Marx.
Selected Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, pp.
ix-xxxv, 54-68, 209-213. Wilson, Frank L. 1996.
Concepts and Issues in Comparative Politics. An Introduction to
Comparative Politics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp.
3-16.
Abbot, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Albert, M., D. Avery, Francis Narin
and P. McAllister. 1991.
"Direct Validation of Citation Counts as Indicators of
Industrially Important Patents," Research Policy20: 251-259.
Allen, Thomas. 1977.
Managing the Flow of Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Almeida, P. and B. Kogut. 1999. "Localization of Knowledge and
the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks," Management
Science45: 7:905-917.
Audretsch, D. and M. Feldman. 1996. "R&D Spillovers and the
Geography of Innovation and Production, American Economic
Review, vol. 86:3:630-640. Adams, James D. 1990. "Fundamental
Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth." Journal of
Political Economy98: 673-702.
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre
and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Bernal, John D. 1939. The
Social Function of Science. New York: Macmillan. Bossard, James
S. 1932.
"Residential Propinquity as a Factor in Marriage Selection,"
American Journal of Sociology, 38: 219-224. Bush, V. 1945.
Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office. Carr, F. 1995. Patents Handbook: A Guide for
inventors
Need a custom research paper? we can write custom research papers for you! |
