Max Weber

For hundreds of years people have tried to find ways to understand the changes in our society. How have we evolved from a hunting and gathering society about 12,000 years ago, when humans lived totally without technology, searching continuously for food, to today’s fast-moving society, where we have modern technology at out fingertips? This paper will argue that three of sociology’s founders, Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emilie Durkheim help us understand how and why society changes.

These three social thinkers, who all lived in the 19th Century and thus were witness to the greatest change in society, the industrial revolution, have all studied societies in different ways and have come up with their own theories for social change. This paper will help us answer questions, which are puzzling us in today’s modern world. Why is there such a large and ever-increasing divide between the rich and the poor?

Why, when globalisation has enabled access to modern technology and information worldwide, are some countries still not embracing modern technology, e. g. omputers, fax, e-mail, at the same level that Europe and USA are? Is material wealth a guarantee to happiness in today’s society and why are traditional family values declining in modern society? With the help of Marx, Weber and Durkheim’s theories we will try to answer these questions and understand today’s society. Karl Marx (1818-1883) interpreted modern society as a largely capitalist society, where profit is made for capitalists or bourgeoisie, who have means of production (factories, land, money), by exploitation of manual labour from the working class or proletariat.

Marx maintained that economic production underlies and shapes the entire society. He called technological and social process of economic production the infrastructure on which all additional social elements like religion, education, family, ideas and values are built to form the superstructure. In other words, he would explain that people’s values, ambitions and ideas are related directly to their economic position, i. e. their function in capitalist society. Marx found that “conflict between economic groups is the major engine of change” (Macionis & Plummer, p. 9). “Marx’s analysis centers on destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, especially the ways in which it promotes class conflict and alienation” (Macionis & Plummer, p. 79). “Alienation is the experience of isolation resulting from powerlessness” (Macionis & Plummer, p. 80). Marx’s theories are relevant in today’s world when we consider the problem of class division. There is an increasing gap between unskilled working class people (e. g. factory workers, labourers) and middle/upper class people (company directors, land/property owners).

Marx’s “struggle between classes” is very evident today, where working class people who want to better themselves and move out of their lower social class, find it difficult to do so. They may not be given the same opportunities as people who, for example, live in richer, more developed areas, with better facilities, i. e. education, training, employment etc. Marx’s theory on class division is also evident when we consider crime. There seem to be different social rules applied to class. We are familiar with the term “white collar crime” and the fact that this often carries lesser punishment than crime carried out by lower classes.

Marx’s theory on alienation can help us understand why people who are ambitious and strive to be successful and therefore work long hours are feeling alienated from society. Workers are told what work they should do, have often no real input on the outcome of the product, often work alone and by doing repetitive work, are alienated from their own human potential. This problem is being addressed by establishing company unions and work societies who represent workers interests and combat alienation, but the industrial capitalist societies as Marx saw them are still evident in many parts of the world today.

Where Marx studied social change from a capitalist angle, Max Weber (1864-1920) considered human ideas, beliefs and values to be the cause of social change. For him, people’s ideas have transforming power. He found that modern society is a product of people’s way of thinking as opposed to Marx’s views that modern technology and capitalism brought about change.

Weber argued that pre-industrial societies’ views are mainly traditional, i. e. “sentiments and beliefs passed from generation to generation” (Macionis & Plummer, p. 1), whereas people in modern societies act rationally, “deliberate matter-of-fact calculation of the most efficient means to accomplish a particular goal” (Macionis & Plummer, p. 82). He viewed the industrial revolution as a rationalisation of society. “People tried to replace tradition with reason and law as the basis for societal organisation” (Tovey & Share, p. 14). Weber argued that the main form of rationalisation was bureaucracy as a way to control larger organisations.

He also found that industrial capitalism was based on Calvinism, where it is pre-destined, God’s will, that some people will do well in this world and that they are given the opportunity to enjoy the materialist, monetary wealth this brings. Like Marx, Weber believed that a problem of industrial capitalism is widespread alienation. But in his view, this was due to disenchantment with the world rather than oppression and false consciousness, i. e. that “social problems are grounded in the shortcomings of individuals rather than the flaws of society” (Macionis & Plummer, p. 78).

We can see Weber’s theory that rationality wears away traditional ties of kinship when we look at today’s modern societies. There is evidence that family values are decreasing with long working hours and with, in a lot of modern families, both parents being career-orientated. Modern technology has also affected traditional family values. The introduction of TV, stereos, computers, telephones, have all decreased the time we spend in direct personal contact with family members and friends. It can be argued that modern technology has enabled us to carry out tasks quicker and save time, but that extra time is seldom ever spent with family.

Rationalising society has given rise to alienation. We are classed as numbers and cases, rather than individuals. Loss of identity is often the result when we consider large-scale organisations, which, as Weber found, may work very well and efficient in their bureaucratic way, but at the cost of our own individuality. This may be the reason why so many countries do not see modern societies, e. g. Europe and USA as advanced and are therefore not willing to embrace modern technology with all its’ problems like alienation.

Emilie Durkheim (1858-1917) viewed society as a structure of social facts. Society has a life of its’ own and can shape our thoughts, ideas and actions. Durkheim argued that society makes us who we are. He saw social change due to division of labour. Like Weber, Durkheim argued that in pre-industrial societies, strong tradition was the main societal influence. He added that this tradition bound people together and termed this “collective conscience”.

From this he concluded that people of the same social beliefs are part of “mechanical solidarity” i. e. social bonds, based on shared morality, that unite members of pre-industrial societies” (Macionis & Plummer, p. 89). He saw that with the advancement of modernity, this mechanical solidarity was increasingly replaced by “organic solidarity” i. e. “social bonds, based on specialisation, that unite members of industrial societies” (Macionis & Plummer, p. 89). Therefore, this solidarity is based on differences as opposed to likeness. As jobs became more specialised to promote efficiency, we have to rely on others, mainly strangers, to ensure the successful completion of tasks.

This may create a lack of morality, due to the increased freedom people of modern society have. They are no longer held together by strict traditional moral social regulations. Another term which Durkheim coined is “anomie”, which is “a condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals” (Macionis & Plummer). Fewer restrictions are imposed on people in modern societies and whereas Durkheim acknowledges the advantages of modern freedom, he warned of the negative effect of anomie.

Anomie can be seen in modern society when we look at why some famous, successful, rich people are unhappy, have mental breakdowns and sometimes even commit suicide. Durkheim’s study of suicide is very relevant today, as he found that people with little attachment to society (anomie) or over attachment to society are more likely to commit suicide than others. Durkheim saw the decreasing importance on morality as a result of modernisation and we can see its’ effect in today’s world, e. g. increase in crime and deviance.

This paper has now considered three different theories, which can explain and help us understand industrial capitalist societies and have looked at how these theories are relevant in today’s world. We have argued that the advancement of technology, which is at the heart of our modern world, is not necessarily good for our society. It has brought its’ own problems, like do we enjoy our high standards of living at the expense of others? Inequality will remain a huge problem. Marx has seen class division to be a major negative result of modernisation.

Weber’s view that modern society is wearing away traditional ties and the loss of individualism is evident in today’s contemporary world, when we consider social problems like crime, decreasing family values, family structure breakdown etc. Durkheim’s theory is that modernity has decreased close moral ties and has led to increased isolation and anomie. There is no question that modern technology has benefited societies in many ways, but the price we have to pay for this technological advancement may be the loss of human community, moral values and beliefs.

Comparing the Ideologies of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber were three historical sociologists. Their views have become world renown and have shaped many ways of interpreting the social structure of many modern societies. This essay will take a glimpse into the three sociologists’ ideals and expose the similarities and differences they may have. Karl Marx’s view of society was based around the economy. All other social structures according to Marx, such as religion, family values, and politics stem from the base, the economy.

Religion played no part at all in Marx’s sociological views. He is known as an atheist. He believed that religion was nothing more than a burden on society. “The economy that forms from the means of production results in the division of labor and forms property” (Simon 1). Division of labor can be described as the way in which tasks are divided in a society. Certain people are assigned certain tasks which help to make sure that the social structure progresses smoothly. As society becomes more advanced, the division of labor becomes more advanced, because more tasks become necessary for society to stably exist.

Therefore, in Marx’s opinion, the economy grows and advances society which fuels the division of labor that is necessary for harmonious living. Marx believed that social struggle was the main cause of social evolution. In a society there is always a group that is in some way oppressed. If we look back just a few hundred years we see this in slavery, and before that serfdom. So how does oppression promote social change? “It is the ruling economic class that determines the dominant ideology in a society… And it is class interest that the proletariat must oppose with revolution. ”(Simon 2).

The upper class in society rules over all the lower classes. When the oppression becomes an unbearable horror for the lower class, they must revolt, according to Marx. We saw this with both given examples. Serfs often fled from their lords, and slaves sought refuge in non-slave states and sometimes even killed their owners. In the case of slavery, there was a complete societal split between the north and the south in America. The main dispute between the two sides was the subject of slavery. But if not for the slaves revolting and feeing, maybe no action would have been taken.

This is Marx’s view of social evolution at its finest. The lower class fought for social freedom, and American society was forever changed. So basically, Marx’s cycle of social change is simply Oppression, revolution, uprising, and then the cycle repeats itself as another lower class becomes oppressed. Durkheim believed that social order is obtained through social integration, which is the extent to which the members of a society are held together. “Durkheim advances his theory of social transition where he argues that social order is maintained through social integration and regulations in a social equilibrium.

All nations develop normative behavior patterns and belief systems in the evolutionary change process. During the transitional period the diffusion of new norms and values disrupts the equilibrium of traditional societies. ”(Zhao 2). Durkheim believed that society is held together by social integration, but when society is evolving, chaos takes over until new social norms are set. After these social norms are integrated into the new society, social equilibrium is once again achieved; that is until the next social evolution. This in between stage of chaotic change is fueled by what Durkheim called anomie. Anomie is described as a breakdown of social norms regulating individual behavior and social interaction. ”(Zhao 4). Durkheim claimed that is human nature to act in a chaotic manner and to seek evolution. The only way he believed that order was possible was through social integration. Religion was a factor in the sociological views of Durkheim. “Religion, in this manner, contributes to the constitution and protection of social order by supplying a moral order. That is to say that ‘since society will always require periodic reaffirmation, religion is an indispensable, permanent social fixture. ”(Mazman 10). Durkheim does not hint whether he himself is religious or not, he simply states that religion is necessary to have social integration. He claims that a moral order is necessary in society. It is a set list of rights and wrongs for people to live by. This order is never changed or even questioned by the members of society in times of peace. This moral order cannot simply be insisted by a ruler of some sort, it is much more complex than that. The moral order must come from an unquestionable source. This is why religion is necessary.

With religion ruling people, they are threatened not with a punishment in this life, but with eternal damnation. People fear what they do not understand; therefore religion is the only thing that can provide absolute social order. A higher being that no person can see or hear cannot be questioned. The fear of eternal punishment will force a large majority of members of society to submit to the moral and social order. Durkheim insists that religion is one of the greatest ways to prevent anomie which leads to the inevitable society revolutionizing chaos.

Max Weber greatly opposed Karl Marx’s views on religion and economy. Weber believed that the economy was certainly not even close to the center of society. “Economies result from communities, which are arranged in such a way that goods, tangible and intangible, symbolic and material, are distributed. Such a distribution is always unequal and necessarily involves power. ”(Simon 8). So in Weber’s opinion material possessions are the root of inequality. Nothing is distributed equally and therefore, leads to social injustice and in some cases oppression.

Weber believed that religion was responsible for change in society. “For Weber, religion, because it calls forth a type of personality through beliefs in ethical values, affects social life and interactions. These ethical values and religious ideas, in turn, are affected by social, economic and political conditions in a given society. ”(Mazman 13). Weber’s view on religion is similar to that of Durkheim. Weber believed that religion gave society a set moral order. Weber also claimed that as society advanced the religious views advanced to somewhat modernize the social order. Weber’s work is therefore an invitation to see the history of political institutions, the history of religions or the history of morals as guided by a diffuse program aiming at defining institutions, rules, etc. which will most efficiently respect the dignity and vital interests of all. ”(Boudon 6) Weber also dug even deeper. He claimed that certain religions prospered more than others. He actually did prove this. Weber showed that Protestants had the best religion, not in the sense of religious views, but socially and economically. Protestantism provided modern individuals with coherent, meaningful, ethical conduct in terms of seeking salvation and God’s blessing in their worldly activities. ”(Mazman 13). The Protestants believed in vocation. They believed that whatever occupation they had in life was not simply by chance, but they were called to it. They were what most would call ‘workaholics’ who dedicated every free second of their time to work. This made the Protestants statistically the most financially well-off group in most societies. This goes back to Weber’s view of the social structure.

The Protestants were the wealthiest so they would be the leaders of society. So as I have shown, these three sociologists, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber, had world renowned views of society. They all had points that were unquestionable yet others that were flaky at best. We often saw views of each man overlapping. One cannot help but to ponder what if another sociologist came along and took the best parts of their works and put the pieces together. Would the perfect sociological view be formed? Only time can tell. ?

No one questions the prevalence of corruption in India. The politicians of the two principal parties may blame each other but the fact of corruption is inescapable. What is more, corruption in India is not news. It has been around since the early years of Independence. Nehru was appalled to notice the behaviour of Congress legislators in UP as early as 1946. He thought they had violated all the provisions of the Indian Penal Code in one way or another! India also has a lot of laws to fight corruption. There have been inquiries and commissions on corruption going back more than fifty years.

There have been several attempts over the last forty years to pass the Lokpal legislation and the latest one is still pending. The Anna Hazare movement has waxed and waned. Across India, be it mining scams in Karnataka, housing scams in Maharashtra, 2G, Taj Corridor, Bihar fodder scandal etc; there are corruption scandals, some pending, some abandoned, some yet to come up for prosecution everywhere you look. It cannot be that India needs another law to fight corruption. India has from the colonial days a tough legislative structure on proper behaviour in the public services very much on the old British model.

B K Nehru in his memoirs relates how as a young ICS officer, he was chewed out by his superiors for accepting a free cinema pass from some cinema owner. He was told he was not to accept even unsolicited gifts, let alone ask for under-the-table cash. Gulzarilal Nanda, twice interim prime minister, retired to his two-room flat in Ahmedabad and lived in modest circumstances till he died. Over twenty plus years in office, including ministries which have subsequently become ATM ministries, he retired without taking a penny illegally. What has changed?

It cannot be the laws but behaviour which is the key to the tolerance of corruption. India’s system of governance has been inherited from Western sources; it is based on what one might call after the great sociologist Max Weber, Weberian rationality. People within a hierarchical structure behave according to certain rules and norms. The superiors respect their inferiors and the latter reciprocate. Their transactions are defined by impersonal rules. If they at all associate with each other outside work, it would be by chance or old connections. One would not seek personal relationship with one’s superiors.

I recall when in my first job in Berkeley, California, my boss hosted his daughter’s wedding, he did not invite any of his colleagues. I realised that that was the norm. His daughter’s wedding was not related to his work. It is not that corruption is not found in Western societies but it always comes as a shock because it does not meet with social approval. In Indian culture, interpersonal relations at work are modelled on family and kin relations. You pay respect to your superiors, seek their blessings, propitiate them with gifts and humble yourself before them.

The superiors regularly treat their inferiors as they would young adults within their joint family and would think nothing of asking them to carry out tasks outside their professional remit. Giving a gift to your superior for Diwali, or on their birthday or their daughter’s wedding is not only not frowned upon, it is approved of. Indeed your fellow workers competing with you for promotion would be busy outdoing you in size of their gifts. The Party leader would expect the local agents to spread out the red carpet and look after his least important needs.

In short, in India there is no separation between formal rules of behaviour at work and family or kin relation behaviour. As soon as you can, you make your superior your ‘uncle’, his wife becomes your mausi. You are expected to invest resources in maintaining your status in your workplace. All this requires money over and above your legal pay and perks. It also counts as corruption on strict formal Weberian rules. And yet the sort of behaviour is not only approved but applauded. Corruption may be as Indian as daal chawal. We are like that only.

This paper intends to highlight the facts concerning Max Weber. This includes general history, his education, major contributions, theories, as well as, the critical contributions he made.

General History

Max Weber was born in Erfurt, South Germany in 21 April 1864 (Morrison, 1995). He passed away in June 1920 (Morrison, 1995). He brilliantly finished school at an early age and then went on to teach at several universities in Germany while delivering thought-provoking lectures and writing what are to be considered his major contributions to politics, sociology, economics etc (Morrison, 1995).

Education

Max Weber was an outstanding student (Morrison, 1995). Furthermore, he holds a bachelor’s degree in law and a doctorate in political economy which he both earned in Berlin (Morrison, 1995). Moreover, he also attended University of Heidelberg, as well as, University of Gottingen (Morrison, 1995).

Major Contributions

Max Weber’s contribution to the world of economy, law & public administration, philosophy, political economy, politics, as well as, sociology include the following: 1) Major research projects on capitalism, methodology, and religion like the “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” specifically “The Religions of the East” wherein he looked into the relationship between religious and philosophical ideas in the east and the development, (as well as, inadequacy of it) of capitalism in that geographical area; 2) “Economy and Society” which is taken to be Max Weber’s most ambitious theoretical and historical work; 3) theory of bureaucracy; 4) types of legitimate domination; 5) concept of rationality; 6) etc (Morrison, 1995).

Theories

Max Weber’s theories are categorized under “bureaucracy” (Morrison, 1995). For him, this concerns the continuous, rational, professionalized, as well as, rule-governed form of administration (Morrison, 1995). In addition to that, Weber believes that bureaucracy is a  form of an administration that do not entail any kind of personal, irrational, or emotional feelings (Morrison, 1995). Furthermore, he associated the phenomenon of bureaucratic development or bureaucratization with rationalization, as well as, modernization (Morrison, 1995).

Moreover, he also claimed that bureaucratic development is related to the division of labor or specialization, in terms of administration and not economic production (Morrison, 1995). Also, he said that bureaucracy is excellent since it is characterized by efficiency, impartiality, as well as, efficiency but from it also arise dangers including its incompatibility with democracy, as well as, alienation of the public from the processes of bureaucracy (Morrison, 1995).

Critical Contributions

One of the most critical contributions of Max Weber is known as the legitimate types of authority (Morrison, 1995). First of all, he claims that legitimate authority and legitimate domination is one and the same (Morrison, 1995). Second, he states that domination is not similar with power (Morrison, 1995). Explaining further, “power according to Max Weber is the capacity of an individual to do something even if resistance comes into play while domination is a right of the ruler to command and to be obeyed (Morrison, 1995).

Third, according to him the three types of legitimate domination or authority are the following: 1) rational-legal, which is based on legal precepts and rules and that obedience is something that is impersonally owed and obligatory wherein an order is the source of authority; 2) traditional, which is established on what norms are acceptable and practiced, including rites and rituals which are carried out wherein the family is the source of authority; and 3) charismatic, which is instituted in the qualities of the leader considered to be extraordinary especially when it comes to the capability of the leader to inspire his followers eventually making his followers obey him (Morrison, 1995).

References

1. Morrison, K. (1995). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought.
2. London: Sage Productions.

We cannot deny the existence of social structures or system by which people are categorized or ranked in a hierarchy. This people categorization is otherwise known as social stratification. It is a universal characteristic of society that persists over generations.  It is a social structure by which social issues and organizational problems arise.

In a society, groups of people share a similar social status, and this is known as social class. Over the years, the importance and definition of membership in any social class evolve and change between societies. Societies have become all the more dynamic because of technological advances, industrialization, and now, globalization.

Contemporary societies stratify into a hierarchical system based on economic status, income or wealth, and this is known as socioeconomic class.  In the past, societies have an upper class and a lower class. Those in the upper class are deemed to be the very wealthy and powerful, while those from the lower class are the poor and the weak.

Considering social changes and developments in the twentieth century, new groups called the middle class and working class in urban societies emerged.  Members of the middle class are the educated, highly paid professionals like doctors, accountants, scientists, and lawyers. They nonetheless work for or render services for the upper class. Much like the working class, they receive their wages, only they earn above the minimum wage because of the market value of their professions and skills. Their market value increases as they increase their skills and competencies. They have the chance to increase their income and eventually move up the social ladder (Krieken, et al, 2001, p. 62).

Meanwhile, those who belong to the working class are the trades people, factory laborers, drivers, and similar workers who has some skills training, which they use to earn a living. Although they may be considered financially stable due to regular income, they still belong to the lower class for the reason that they earn only slightly above the minimum wage.

Other members of the lower class are the underemployed, unemployed, welfare beneficiaries, homeless, and everyone else who live below the poverty line. Due to lack of education and skills, their opportunities are simply limited (McGregor, 1997, p. 261).

Social stratification is already an intrinsic structure of any society, and if it has its benefits and function in a society, which some scholars believe, that is reward and merit for productivity. People are rewarded for their productive efforts and skills. When we speak of reward, it does not only mean economic reward. Remember that people are also rewarded with (social) honor and this is known as social status.

Karl Max and Max Weber were distinguished theorists whose works have become the basic but significant frameworks of sociology. Their concepts prove to be relevant until today. They have provided a rich reservoir of perspectives, which help contemporary social thinkers and learners, understand social stratification, classes and status groups. They both laid the groundwork for understanding social conflict and inequality in modern society such that whenever issues of social inequality arise, whether it is on the basis of social class, race, ethnicity, gender, and other dimensions, all these are explored and studied in the context of sociological traditions derived from their works.

 Karl Marx’ Concept of Class
Karl Marx defined class in terms of the extent to which a person or social group has the capacity to control the means of production. Those of the same social class have a common relationship to the means of production. Marx believed that the base of inequality among individuals in modern societies is economy (Sanghara).

Marx believed that classes are constituted by the relationship of groupings of individuals to property ownership in the means of production. In this regard, a few own properties and capital while others do not, many work while only a few live off the fruits of those workers. Class societies have been built around a line of demarcation between two antagonistic classes, one dominant and the other subordinate (Giddens, 1971, p. 37).

Marx’ view of social stratification stemmed from his observations of early industrialization in Europe during the late part of the 19th century. He saw the existence of two major classes –the ruling class (capitalists) and the working class, or otherwise known as the bourgeois and proletariat. The capitalists were viewed as such because of their ownership of the means of production, as well as the power this creates – economically and even politically (Krieken, et al, 2001, p. 55).

In a capitalist system, the ruling class, with their economic resources, lives from the productivity of the working class, and this is when social divisions and conflicts arise. Unlike in tribal, rural or simple societies where people live by hunting (or gathering), people can not be categorized differently, because no one has more than others do.

Marx believed that the conflict between the bourgeois (capitalists) who happen to control production, and the proletariat who actually produce the goods or render services in a society, on the basis of capitalism.

In capitalism, control over production evokes control over the laborers, and this set-up is likely to result in exploitation of workers by the capitalists. With the craving of capitalists themselves to compete with fellow capitalists, and the greediness for more material gains, Marx predicted that in a society where the capitalist system prevails, financial resources of the few but wealthy capitalists would flourish. At the same time, the income disparity between the poor and the rich would continue. Meanwhile, as capitalists continue to exploit workers, the workers would remain victims of economic crises.

The social classes that originated from the capitalist system that Marx knew during his time still holds true today, only, the bourgeois class has become fragmented over the last century due to the emergence of the so-called stockholders. Likewise, the proletariat has been changed significantly by the “white-collar revolution.” Decades ago, work involved mostly manual labor, or otherwise known as “blue-collar” occupations. “White-collar” occupations involve mostly mental or non-manual skills. However, the shared social structure of earning wages makes both proletariats during Marx’ time, and today’s educated but average office workers, a “working class.”

Today, workers’ conditions have significantly improved through the efforts of labor organizations, and, because of expanded legal rights and protection of workers. While exploitation of workers still happen, and a small proportion of powerful people control the vast majority of wealth in our society, Marx’ perspectives will continue to prove valuable and significant in our understanding of social conflicts that arise from social stratification.

Max Weber’s Social Stratification

Max Weber expressed a two-fold classification of social stratification, with social class, status groups as distinct concepts. He believed that, the economic order was of great importance in determining the precise position of different communities, but nonetheless, he did not discount the important role of religion, ideas, status, and bureaucracy (Hadden, 1997, p. 126).

Weber defined class as the disproportionate distribution of economic rewards, and the status group as the disproportionate distribution of social honor (Krieken, et al, 2001, p.58). Class position is determined by one’s market value. This market value is founded by education, talent, acquired skills and competencies. He had no notion of “surplus value,” unlike Marx. Social class is simply an aggregate of people with similar work or professional opportunities, and their position would depend on the choices they made out of these opportunities.

Unlike social class, status groups have similar qualities like groups. They are influenced by how social honor is shared among the members of the group. Lifestyle is shared by those of the same social circle. Belonging to a status group may depend on kinship, education, and at the most extreme, through a caste system, which happens to be related to one’s culture. In a caste system, status is determined not only by law and convention, but also by religious sanction (Gane, 2005, p. 211).

Contrary to Marx’ perception, Weber believed that status is more influential than economic condition. He introduced the concept of status groups as an additional social category to define one’s consumption pattern or lifestyle. If Marx focused on one’s position in the production assembly, Weber believed that status groups are actually communities held together by common lifestyles and social esteem. Status groups share the same professions, views, as well as lifestyles. They do not just enjoy economic rewards, but social honor as well. With their professional achievement, comes social honor.

Weber was concerned with individuality and generality (Ritzer, p. 114). For instance, he  recognized the individuality of people – their talents, skills and competencies and, that people have a good chance to further their career and improve their standard of living by increasing their market value through education.

Weber’s theory on social mobility (or movement in the class structures) is more promising. Unlike Marx’ idea of social class which imply that animosity between the bourgeois and proletariat will not end until the proletariat eventually overthrow the bourgeois.

However, Weber’s concept of social mobility does not only mean an upward movement. The reverse may also happen and that is – moving down the social ladder. Moving up or down the social ladder will depend upon the life choices the person made, as well as opportunities he had. In this case, the middle class are the most predisposed as it is only an intermediary class. Just like how Marx argued, the middle class would be eventually absorbed into both the upper and lower class, as this is not sufficiently different for it to survive (as a social class) in the long run.

Conclusion

Karl Marx and Max Weber were two important personalities whose theories led to our understanding of social stratification, class and status groups. Marx provided an elaborate and very systematic concept of capitalism and capitalist development, and its effect in society.  While Weber held other factors were also relevant in determining the future of our society  such as religion, culture, ideas, values, meaning, social and personal action.

Marx and Weber’s perspectives amazingly still hold true in today’s modern societies. In the “Communist Manifesto,” Marx and Engels remarked that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Bottomore, 1983,  p. 75). In any historical era, social classes were real and today, pressing economic conditions make social stratification and other structures all the more complex.

Despite the fact that many work even harder to achieve more economic reward, many cannot move up the social ladder. “The class in its turn achieves an independent existence over against the individuals, so that the latter find their conditions of existence predestined, and hence have their position in life and their personal development assigned to them by their class, become subsumed under it” (Giddens and Held, p. 20)

To be in the middle of the ladder, and stay there is such a long tedious struggle. Opportunities come, but sometimes, these elude them. In most modern societies in the world, many still live below the poverty line. But those who are born in a wealthy or powerful family, knows just where they stand in the hierarchy system – and that is similar to that of their parents. Looking at how wealth is proportioned in today’s society, and how richer populations possess and continue to increase their wealth, Marx was right. The trend of widening disparity in wealth and social class between the rich and the poor will continue, until we brace ourselves as a social group to make a conscious and consolidated effort of reducing this gap.

Weber believed, we can accomplish things which we do not even rationally or scientifically  think we are capable of doing, “namely the subjective understanding of the action of the component individuals” (Weber, 1968, p. 15). In other words, man has innate capabilities and the power to make significant change in himself and in the society where he belongs.

To illustrate his viewpoint and applying it in contemporary society – and it may already sound cliché, one way of reducing the gap between social classes is through education. Through education, we are able to set the social foundation for the next generations.  It is the long route, but nonetheless, its impact has more lasting value.

References:

Bottomore, T (ed), 1983, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, p. 75.

Krieken, R, et al, 2001, and Perspectives, 2nd edition, Longman, Melbourne, pp. 54-62.

McGregor, C, 1997, Class in Australia, Penguin Books, Victoria, pp. 261.

Gane, N, 2005, “Max Weber as a Social Theorist,” European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 211-226 (2005)

Giddens, A, 1971, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 17.

Giddens, A and Held, D, 1982, Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates, Berkeley, University of California Press, p. 20.

Hadden, R, 1997, Sociological Theory: An Introduction to the Classical Tradition, Peterborough, Ontario, Broadview Press, p. 126.

Ritzer, G, 1992, Sociological Theory, 3rd edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, p. 114.

Sanghara, S, The Concept of Social Inequality, 3 March 2008, http://wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_macionis_sociology_5/23/6031/1544046.cw/index.html

Weber, M, 1968, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, New York, Bedminster Press, p. 15.

A Little Horizontal Integration, Please Greg Fry MGMT6109049 University of Maryland University College Bureaucracy consists of an organization characterized by: specific job functions and a strict vertical hierarchical structure. Bureaucratic structure introduced a shift in the archetype of society just before the 19th century. Max Weber, known for his thoughts on capitalism and bureaucracy, contributed greatly to this archetype.

The classic bureaucratic model, according to Weber, is described as having such characteristics as: political neutrality, vertical structure, specific job responsibilities, and well-written impersonal documentation, which is used to ensure functional reliability. (Weber M. , 1978) This essay will concentrate on the vertical structure and the rigid tasks and knowledge of the bureaucratic model, to show that an organization can become too big and rigid to be effective in daily tasks.

According to Weber, “bureaucratization offers above all the optimum possibility for carrying through the principle of specializing administrative functions according to purely objective considerations. ” (Weber M. , 1958) However, this takes away the human factor, which can hinder an employee from making an effective decision. This is all too clear when looking at the Veterans Benefits Administration, and how they handle their customers. The following diagram depicts the Veterans Benefits Administration Organization (Organization Chart – Veterans Benefits Administration, 2012): pic] Figure 1 The Veterans Benefits Administration organization is a vertically structured government agency. The structure shows how the different regional offices do not have the means to communicate with each other. Figure provided by (http://vacriteria. tpub. com/vba_dg/vba_dg0010. htm). Weber predicted that bureaucracy would triumph because of its ability to ensure more efficient functioning of organizations in both business and government settings. (Daft, 2010) However, in the case of the Veterans Benefits Administration, Weber may be wrong.

The vertical hierarchy and strict rules prevent the different organizations from talking to each other. The example below will show that a large bureaucracy needs to be horizontally integrated along with the vertical structure to allow the employees the freedom to make decisions and communicate properly with other functional areas. A former Air Force member decided to use his GI Bill to continue his education. He started to use his bill while living in the state of Maryland. He then moved to Indiana, where he continued to use the GI Bill without issue.

However, during a semester of class, the member needed to drop a class due to job priorities. He contacted the Education Service Organization, as seen in the above chart, to let them know of his issue. They were in agreement that the class should be dropped without penalty. A few months passed, and the member received a letter in the mail from the Eastern Regional office stating that the member owed money due to the dropping of the class earlier. The member called the helpline to explain the situation.

The student was told that the regional office is separate from the education services branch and that he should have corresponded with the regional branch instead. The member went up the chain of command within the regional organization, without success. He was advised to protest the decision, which could take up to six months. The frustrated student sent in all the pertinent documents to the review board, which was located in the eastern region. During the protest stage, the member received another letter from the Veteran Administration’s Collections Center.

The student was very surprised and contacted the collections center immediately. Once the member was able to reach a person who could help, he tried to explain that he was protesting the decision that was made by the office in the eastern region. The collections officer said that it didn’t matter what he was doing with the eastern region. The collections officer was located in the central region where all non-payments are reported. The student asked if the collections officer could contact the eastern regional representative to clear up the mess that was being created.

The answer was “no” due to the fact that the central and eastern regional offices were not associated with each other, and he had his rules and regulations to follow. After a two year battle, the student ended up having to pay money back to the Administration, along with fees from the collections agency. Rather than focusing on narrow jobs structured into distinct functional departments, the Veterans Benefits Administration should emphasize core processes that cut horizontally across the organization and involve teams of employees working together to serve the customer. Daft, 2010) Weber built these bureaucratic organizations to act like machines and not think; however, bureaucracies could not and cannot act like machines because they consist of human beings. People will simply not imitate machines, although the Veterans Benefits Administration has certainly given it a good shot. Reference Daft, R. L. (2010). Organization Theory and Design (tenth ed. ). Mason, Ohio: Joe Sabatino. Integrated Publishing. (n. d. ). Organization chart Veterans Benefits      Administration.

Retrieved January/February 4, 2012, from      http://vacriteria. tpub. com/vba_dg/vba_dg0010. htm Organization Chart – Veterans Benefits Administration. (2011, October 10). Retrieved Ocotober 12, 2011, from Integrated Publishing: http://www. tpub. com/content/vacriteria/vba_dg/vba_dg0010. htm Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. One). (G. Roth, & C. E. Wittich, Eds. ) Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Weber, M. (1958). Essays in Sociology. (H. H. Gerth, & C.

W. Mills, Eds. ) New York: Oxford University Press. ———————– UNDER SECRETARY OF BENEFITS OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT & TRAINING CHIEF OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DEP. UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF EXE. MANAGEMENT & COMMS EASTERN[pic] REGION CENTRAL REGION SOUTHERN REGION WESTERN REGION REGIONAL OFFICES REGIONAL OFFICES REGIONAL OFFICES REGIONAL OFFICES COMPENSTATION & PENSION SERVICE EDUCATION SERVICE LOAN GUARANTY SERVICE COUNSELING SERVICE INSURANCE SERVICE