NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Sociology: Different Approaches to Social Inequality Social Inequality refers to the unequal distribution of valued goods and services among the members of a given group or population at a particular point of time. Meanwhile, Social Stratification refers to such a distribution of goods and services that has become permanent over time, they are structured and justified by prevailing norms, beliefs and values, and it transmitted from generation to another in the society. Theories about these subject are many for instance, Natural Superiority Theory, Functionalist Theory, Marxist Class Conflict Theory and Weberian Multiple Hierarchies Model. In this paper we will discuss main differences between approaches to social inequality of Marx, Weber and Durkheim.
Marx theories were influenced by social relations and period when he lived. His main accent in social inequality was put on economic factors causing stratification of classes. On the other hand, Weber had the advantage of writing at a later period than Marx. He took into account more than just economic factors such as social status and parties as opposed to Marx, which allows for a more in depth explanation of social inequality.
Then paper will discuss Durkheim's approach to social inequality. Durkheim also had the advantage of writing at a later period. He used the Division of Labor in Society to explain social inequality. His idea was that as society became more complex, the tasks in it became more specialized with unequal rewards as motivation for doing these tasks thus making society more and more stratified. Finally in the conclusion the essay will discuss the main differences between each of their approaches to social inequality. Social inequality is generally seen to have existed due to the rise of industrialism and capitalism.
Industrialism saw the rise of mechanisation and the wealth of society being concentrated within a small minority of the population. Capitalism required an increasing amount of division of labour and so a situation was created where individuals had to carry out unequal tasks in terms of value and prestige. Whilst some individuals had the power to give out orders in large companies, many manual jobs had to be filled by male workers, whilst most women fulfilled the domestic role. Today social inequality is still seen to exist, in terms of class, gender, age or ethnic divisions. Social inequality did not exist in mans 'natural's tate because of the common control of resources allegedly characterized by the ownership of land by the total community with individual rights in tools, cultivation and the distribution of products. Those who labored owned the land they labored on, the requisite tools, their own labor power and had the rights in common over the distribution of the products.
When any of these factors was altered so that only a few in society owned the land, inequality was born. (Ritzer, 2002: I) Marx's ideas were based on the presupposition of what is generally going to happen by interpreting the French revolution and its consequences. For Marx the French revolution merely was a political revolution. He assumes that a part of civil society, a specific class- the bourgeoisie- emancipated itself and that it did so because of peculiar circumstances in France at that time. Thus Marx is correct in saying that in specific circumstances it is possible for a particular group with a particular interest to be the voice of the people at large (Kivisto, 2002: I). Thus feudal societies had given way to capitalist society because a rising middle of capitalists successfully struggled against a feudal landed aristocracy and won the day. This merchant and industrialist class in effect merged with those with property consisting of land to form a new capitalist class and those whom they were exploiting formed the working class. (Turner, 2003: IIX) The dominant class exploited the subordinate class through the expropriation of the surplus product of their labor.
This domination was achieved under a system of laws created by the state, and maintained by main force and ideological influence (Ritzer, 2002: II). Because the proletarians owned no means of production such as raw materials, capital or natural resources, it was always necessary for them to sell their property, their labor power in order to live; whereas the bourgeoisie in using their property, capital, accumulated more property in the form of profit. Their labor power accumulated more property for the bourgeoisie, while the wages of the workers remained constant, at best, or even declined. Given the favored position in the organization of economic activities, all other privileges followed. The bourgeoisie acquired political power, favorable laws and control over the arts and sciences, while the cause of the proletariat grew worse with progress of capitalism. There are many criticisms on Marxists' version of social stratification.
First, it is too simplistic. It undermines the importance of the petite bourgeoisie. It has also been criticized for being too deterministic and over-emphasizes economics at the expense of status. The course of history has shown that Marx was wrong in many aspects. Through the emergence of the petite bourgeoisie, the polarization that Marx claimed between the main classes did not take place, instead the middle class managed to link and bridge the gap between these two classes. (Turner, 2003: IIX). While Karl Marx theory of social stratification was based solely upon economic criteria, Max Weber extended it by identifying three basic elements that would lead to social stratification, wealth, power and prestige.
Weber identified that there are four main classes in society, the upper class, the middle class, the white collar class and the working class or the lower class. Although Weber did not deny the importance of economic factors, he was not prepared to accept that man acted for bread alone, and he organized much of his work to show that other factors were important influences (Turner, 2003: XI). The economic order in his view constituted three important dimensions to be considered: class, status, and parties. According to Weber, it is possible to determine a class situation by locating groups in their relationships to the market. Thus, class is defined, firstly through individuals who have a common fate in terms of their life chances; secondly, through securing the same income as they share the same economic interests; and thirdly, through being in the same position in the way they offer their labor power as a commodity to the market. In contrast to the purely economic determined "class situation" we wish to designate as "status situation" every typical component of the life fate of men, that is determined by a specific, positive or negative, social estimation of honor.
This honor may be connected with any quality shared by a plurality, and of course it can be knit to a class situation (Kivisto, 2002: III): mode of living, education, birth or occupation or both propertied and property less can belong to the same status groups. Weber notes: "when the bases of acquisition and distribution of goods are relatively stable, stratification by status is favored. " (Kivisto, 2002: 60) Though Weber believed that economic factor was important in the development of social stratification, he believed that other factors such as class and prestige were equally important. He also rejected the idea of polarization of classes and the inevitability of class revolution and Marx view that political influence derives from economic power. Though Weber tried to point out and correct the defects in Marx theory, the theory itself was prone too many criticisms. Many Marxists criticized it for underestimating the importance of class divisions in society.
Advocates of Weberian theory tried to defend his theory by stating that Weber did not underestimate the importance of class divisions but only introduced other factors that were equally important in shaping social stratification like prestige and power. In Weber's view any system of social inequality need both material and moral support (inequality). Parties are formed to reach a certain 'goal or 'cause', they try to relate therefore to the economical and social realms. Parties might differ, according to the relative importance of either class or status groups in a given society. Their action is orientated towards the acquisition of social "power", towards influencing a communal action no matter what its content may be. (Ritzer, 2002: IV) Emile Durkheim was a member of the functionalist strain of sociology, which provides the present source of stimulation for research into this topic. In the functionalist approach, society is seen as resembling a living organism.
To keep a living organism alive different parts of the organism must fulfill certain tasks (Kivisto, 2002: II). Similarly in society, members of society must perform certain tasks to keep society functioning properly and that no society can survive without exhibiting social stratification. Durkheim based his analysis in the Division of Labor in Society on his conception of two ideal types of society. The more primitive society "characterized by mechanical solidarity or a set of rules and regulations which structure social life and which influence the individuals' life has a relatively undifferentiated society with little or no division of labor. " (Ritzer, 2002: 81) The more modern society characterized by organic solidarity with a high division of labor. A high division of labor would instill in individuals the desire to occupy certain positions in society with unequal rewards for filling more and less important positions in society, thus causing social inequality. (Turner, 2003: XVII) Now the essay will compare each of these perspectives on social inequality. Marx was not a sociologist, yet much of his works had a profound influence on sociology.
His unique approach to the critique of political economy is a model that takes into account conflict and change- both leading to historical progress (Turner, 2003: IIX) The capitalist / worker dichotomy did not need, as he saw it by separate explanations on the basis of power, prestige or anything else. Weber was a political economist, not a critique of political economy. His contribution lies less in the exposition of a theory and more in the form of a clarification of an issue that the complexity of social life required more than a mono causal explanation for all consequences (Turner, 2003: XI) whereas Marx believed that economic factors were the sole cause of social inequality. However, it must be pointed out that Weber had the advantage of writing at a later point than Marx. Weber gave a more complex view of social stratification taking into account other factors such as status, or the effective claim to positive or negative privilege and parties envisaging a continuum rather than dichotomy hierarchal groupings.
Durkheim on the other hand recognized how society has become more and more complex as time goes on. Complex societies as he noticed have a much higher division of labor as opposed to primitive societies. Thus members of complex societies must perform more specialized tasks and as a result of these tasks becoming more specialized, rewards in unequal amounts in order of importance must be given out in order to fill these positions where talents may be scarce and to give people the motivation to fill these positions in society. Different from Webber and Marx, Durkheim did not take into account economical factors discussing social inequality. He suggested that labor division in society gives motivation to conducting certain actions, and those who working harder occupy higher status in society.
In conclusion, despite attempts by different social groups to try and eliminate social inequality, it does not seem likely that it can be completely eradicated. It is unlikely that class inequalities will be completely eradicated since capitalism is a stable force in the contemporary world, and that the decline of politics on the left has meant that a system where everyone is equal is unlikely the possibility of communism and socialism rising in the western world is relatively low. In terms of gender, it is likely that some inequality will always exist due to biological differences between men and women. However, although social inequality is unlikely to be eradicated completely, there is still a good possibility of inequalities in society being reduced, and a possibility of improving one's position.
All the theories were equally significant to understand social stratification and inequality. Each theory has its strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless they have one thing in common, giving more insights about the nature of our social world and our place in it. Bibliography: Peter Kivisto, (Ed. ) (2002).
Social Theory. Roots and Branches. Readings. Roxbury Publishing Company; 2 nd edition. Jonathan. H.
Turner. (2003). The Structure of Sociological Theory, 7 th ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. George Ritzer. (2002). Contemporary Sociological Theory (and Its Classical Roots), The Basics, McGraw-Hill.
Free research essays on topics related to: social stratification, sociological theory, division of labor, positive or negative, social inequality
Research essay sample on Sociology Different Approaches To Social Inequality
