Neo-Marxism and Stratification

This article discusses stratification in the U.S. and sociological theories of stratification and inequality including conflict theories of Marx and his two-class system of proletariat versus capitalist, Weber and others, and functionalist theories of Durkheim, and Parsons. The conflict perspective is described, including Marxist notions of exploitation and Weber's theory of stratification based on wealth, power and prestige. The article also explains how characteristics continue to prevent a person from moving up in the U.S. stratification system. The functionalist perspective of stratification is also discussed, to include meritocracy. Attempts to challenge classical sociological theories that emerged are discussed, including Neo-Marxism, Neo-Weberianism, and Neofunctionalism.

Keywords American Dream; Ascribed Characteristics; Capitalist Class; Class Conflict; Dialectical Materialism; Exploitation; Income; Inequality; Meritocracy; Life Chances; Neofunctionalism; Neo-Marxism; Neo-Weberianism; Power; Prestige; Proletariat; Social Class; Stratification; Wealth

Neo-Marxism & Stratification

Overview

Sociology had its beginnings in the 19th and early 20th century during the industrial revolution, primarily to make sense of what was happening in the world, particularly in western Europe where industrialization was bourgeoning. When the industrial revolution reached the U.S., the Chicago School of sociology, essentially an urban sociology, came into existence. It followed at first with a functionalist perspective, and asked, with so much change in the social order, what remained constant, what was the glue that kept society from flying apart at the seams? The classical functionalist sociologists, including Durkheim, Merton and Parsons, focused on this perspective, seeking the stabilizing factors of society, while other classical sociologists such as Marx and Weber examined the new capitalist economy and the struggle between groups of people for resources. Their cumulative writings became the basis for sociological study into the mid-twentieth century, with a divergence into two schools of thought: functionalist and conflict. However, in the mid-twentieth century, new technologies began to emerge and new economic developments called for modern approaches to sociological theory. One such modern approach was Neo-Marxism (Fligstein, 2000). Other approaches have developed, often in response to Neomarxism, including Neofunctionalism and Neo-Weberianism.

Stratification in the U.S.

The primary determining factor in the American class structure is the amount of income gained from wages, salaries, governmental aid and property ownership (Beeghley, 2000.) Most Americans work for someone else to earn a living.

However, income is only one facet of a person's wealth. One must add in property, especially income-producing property, as well as boats, cars, vacation homes, and stocks to determine wealth. It is no wonder, then, that a primary symbol of the American Dream is home ownership. In addition, the accumulation of all types of "stuff" is a familiar pastime in the U.S.

In an age where new technologies such as the computer and telecommunications have emerged, there is much wealth in the U.S. and indeed, in the world, but it is concentrated in the hands of a few. Since the 1980s, incomes have risen for many Americans. The cultural value in the U.S. of hard work and success lends credence to functionalist notions of a meritocracy, where those who have accumulated wealth deserve to be compensated in such a fashion because of their extraordinary efforts or talents, or both. Those who have not achieved the success that has come to be known as the American Dream are sometimes viewed as unwilling to work hard to overcome barriers to their success. Whether undeserving or not, the result has been poor health care, an invisible status in government and politics, and a larger than ever prison population used to control this ever-larger segment of the population (Fligstein, 2000).

Certainly, many Americans have achieved some modicum of comfort. There is very little, if any, absolute poverty in the country, when compared to the poverty of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, for example. But poverty does exist and the gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to widen. Since the 1990s, poverty has created more poverty while wealth has continued to produce more wealth. Between 1991 and 2001, the top one fifth of the U.S. population increased its income by 31%, while the poorest one fifth saw its income increase by only 10% (DeNavas-Walt, Cleveland & Webster, 2003). Women and people of color, especially, who have experienced discrimination based on their ascribed characteristics of sex and race, have made some strides in gaining equality. Yet there is evidence that discrimination against women and various minority groups (particularly African-Americans) continues, and that stratification in the U.S. still exists and the rich still get richer. In 2000, the wealth of the average white household was more than ten times that of the average African American household, and eight times that of the average Latino/a household (Orzechowski & Sepielli, 2001). In fact, among prosperous nations, the U.S is first in inequality of income distribution (Rothchild, 1995).

Classical Sociological Perspectives on Stratification & Class

Since its inception in the 19th century, sociology has produced the classical sociologists who have attempted to determine how society works: what causes it to shift and bump, what causes its smooth operation. The two most influential perspectives are the conflict and the functionalist schools.

According to conflict perspectives, societal groups are constantly in a struggle over the power to control scarce resources. The conflict might take the form of politics, litigation, negotiations, or family discussions about financial matters. Advocates of the conflict perspective view social life as a continuous power struggle among competing social groups (Kendall, 2007). Marxism is a branch of the conflict perspective in sociology.

Marxism

According to Karl Marx, the social class we belong to is directly related to our work, or our ability to own the means of production. Marx identified only two classes: the proletariat, or worker class who earns a wage for work performed, and the bourgeoisie, or the capitalist class, who owns the factories and other means of production and hires (and also exploits) the workers. These relationships, according to Marx, are inevitable. A worker is always exploited, a capitalist always exploits by keeping the profit made by exploiting the worker. The capitalists maintain control of the economic and social system: politics, government, education, and other institutions to manipulate the social structure in their favor (Kendall, 2007).

Marx predicted a social revolution by the workers that would overthrow the capitalists' yoke, and capitalism would end with the overtaking of the means of production by the state, creating a more equal distribution of social resources. His notion of dialectical materialism was the belief that “history progresses in stages that are based solely on ownership of the means of production (i.e., feudalism replaced aristocracy, capitalism replaced feudalism, and true socialism or communism will replace capitalism)” (“Dialectical materialism, 2006). When the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917, much of the world believed that Marx's prediction was coming true and capitalists began to defend against the possibility. However, the United Soviet Socialist Republic fell from power in 1991 (Francis, 2007) and much has happened since then in the world's distribution of wealth.

Weber's Analysis of Class

Building on Marx's theory of class struggle, as well as other theories of capitalism, Max Weber, who lived later than Marx, was able to see capitalism in its various forms over time. While he agreed that economics was a basis for studying human behavior, Weber included other important resources such as social and political power and prestige as dimensions of social class (Bourdieu, 1984). In other words, people with similar levels of wealth, power and prestige are members of the same class.

But Weber went beyond Marx's two-class system of the worker and the capitalist. Among those who worked for wages, Weber developed two classes: the middle class, comprised of managers, professionals and white-collar workers and the working class, comprised of skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workers. The privileged class was called the entrepreneurs, owners, bankers, professionals and merchants who had similar levels of wealth. The people in the privileged class can monopolize their superior position by controlling status symbols such as education, neighborhood and networks. Beyond the breakdown of capitalist and worker classes, Weber also identified two other aspects that determine social class: power and prestige. Powerful people can get things the way they want them, even if there is opposition to their desires. The President of the United States is an example of a powerful position. Prestige is the respect a person has when thought of by others. A person can have a great deal of prestige, but not necessarily a lot of wealth, or power. Mother Theresa, champion of the poor, is an example of a person with a great deal of prestige. Although power, prestige and wealth are separate continuums in Weber's theory, many people have elements of all three of Weber's categories; the wealthy are also powerful and often prestigious, mostly because of their wealth and power (Beeghley, 2000.)

Whether the perspective differences of Marx or Weber are considered, one thing remains constant for both: social class can affect one's life chances, the ability to have access to society's important resources such as education, health care, nutrition, housing, clothing and food (Kendall, 2007).

Applications

Contemporary Sociological Theories

Contemporary sociologists have found it necessary to revamp traditional perspectives so they will fit into the conditions of late 20th and early 21st century capitalism. Some of these updated perspectives include Neo-Marxism, Neo-Weberianism and Neofunctionalism.

Neo-Marxism

The conflict perspective in sociology encompasses several theories including the neo-Marxist approach, which purports that class struggle is unavoidable and serves as the primary vehicle of social change.

Engels from Marx's early emphasis on dialectical materialism, where one economic system would absolutely replace another, and economic determinism, where there is no free will or choice to ideas incorporating a more humanistic and idealistic bent (www.ismbook.com).

Neo-Marxism combines Max Weber's notions of social inequality, status, prestige and power, with Marxist philosophy, which concentrates on a simple economic class conflict between the workers and the capitalists.

The Difference between Marxism & Neo-Marxism

Orthodox ideologists argue that a reformation of Marxism is impossible, yet a new movement for social equality has taken root, Neo-Marxism. The difference between the two, some argue, is the notion of materialism and economy for the traditional Marxists and cultural issues for non-orthodox, or neo-Marxists (Arrewell, 1986).

Capitalism, however, has changed since the 19th century when Marx observed class conflict in industrialized England where he lived and worked, whereby the capitalists wanted to reduce the cost of labor while the workers wanted to increase it. Today, those who own companies don't often control them; they are often controlled by a group of investors who might be the workers themselves. Through labor unions and government intervention, workers have gained more rights than those who existed in Marx's time. Lines of distinction between Marx's two classes have blurred considerably.

But the basis for Marxism was economics and that has not changed much. Although other things come into play to determine a person's social class, such as gender, religion, education and political persuasion and the power and prestige that accompany each of these categories, the bottom line is still an economic one. Women still earn 70 cents to a white man's dollar in the United States. African Americans and other minorities also fall short as a group, when compared economically with whites.

Contradictory Class Location

By the mid-twentieth century, it was obvious that Marx's two-class conflict between the workers and the capitalists was not fitting the U.S. stratification system. There were many workers who also owned means of production, or stock in their own companies and could therefore, according to Marx, also be called capitalists. It seemed that there was a gray area that Marxism had not taken into consideration, mainly because these conditions had not existed in his time. One of the theories which evolved to include this problem with Marxist philosophy was one called Contradictory Class Location, developed by an American Marxist, Erik Olin Wright.

Wright argued that there exists a working class, or proletariat, which does not own the means of production, nor does that worker own stock in the company, but simply sells an hour of labor for a wage. This worker is exploited by the capitalist, or the bourgeoisie, because a profit occurs in the goods or services produced in that hour, which the worker does not share. However, using the example of managers, exploitation occurs because the managers receive a wage, but they also control the workers below them. Capitalist societies have both the simple capitalist-worker relationship, but they have, besides a management level, a group called the petite bourgeoisie, people who not only make the product, but also own their own means of production. If the petite bourgeoisie also employs other workers, the relationship becomes one of worker and capitalist. These are all examples of contradictory class location because they fall somewhere in the gray area between proletariat (worker) and bourgeoisie (capitalist) (Wright, 1979).

Viewpoints

Other Modernized Versions of Classical Sociological Perspectives

Marxism, as one of the conflict perspectives in sociology, is not the only theoretical model in that discipline to be brushed up and renewed. Functionalism is receiving new attention from advocates of Neofunctionalism, intended as the functionalists' response to the Neo-Marxism of proponents of the conflict perspective (Camic, 1986). One can also find other challenges to traditional sociological models: ethnomethodology, Neo-Weberianism, linguistically-sensitive sociology, and more (A.W.G., 1974). Two of these are briefly discussed here, Neofunctionalism and Neo-Weberianism.

Neofunctionalism

The classical structural functionalist perspective in sociology was produced by Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist. This perspective was created by Parsons to reflect his vision of an integrated social science and it was an influential theory well into the 1960s. The attempt to revive Parson's theory is called Neofunctionalism ("Neofunctionalism," n.d.) and has several new methodologies including symbolic interactionism, a micro level of social analysis, as well as macro levels; making functionalism a more leftist perspective than it has been previously viewed; and to emphasize uncertainty and interactional creativity associated with a person's free will to act ("Neofunctionalism," n.d.).

Neo-Weberianism

Why does one country prosper when another struggles? For example, why has Poland prospered when Russia has not? Why is South Korea's economy so much larger than Ghana's although they were comparable less than 40 years ago?

Neo-Weberianism believes that the answer is culture. Some societies are wealthy not because of economics and politics, but because of social attitudes. According to Stille (2001), this "Culture Matters" “is a return to the thinking of the German sociologist Max Weber and can be called Neo-Weberianism. In his essay, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," Weber wrote that the emphasis on individual responsibility in the Protestant Reformation had provided the impetus for capitalism.”

This idea has been revived as thinking changes about how the world works. The recent prosperity of many former East Asian colonies such as Malaysia and South Korea and the continued poverty of most of Africa have stumped traditional theories of underdevelopment and colonialism, thus opening the door for a revival of Weber's ideas (Stille, 2001).

Conclusion

Americans expect to move upward in the class system, because that has been the trend throughout most of the country's history. With a steadily growing economy, the living standard for most Americans has improved from generation to generation. In fact, there are more people than ever earning over $100,000 annually, and there are over five million millionaires (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005.) But not everyone is as fortunate. Wages have stalled, or decreased for many workers, even with the number of hours worked increasing. Industrial jobs have been lost to American workers and moved overseas to low income countries where workers receive very poor wages. The jobs left to American workers in this post-industrial era, tend to be lower paying service positions.

Much of the trend for Americans is linked to the global economy. Industry has moved overseas and Americans find it difficult to buy an item made in the U.S. Because factory jobs have been moved to other countries by multinational corporations, those workers must find work in the service sector, and they find that their wages are significantly lower. Most families require two incomes to pay bills, where in the past, one income was often sufficient.

It is little wonder, then, that classical sociological theories such as Marxism have had to revamp their perspectives to take into account the new U.S. economy, which is so closely tied today with a global economy. Boundaries between workers and capitalists tend to be blurred, thus requiring a new Marxism. Sports figures earn higher and higher salaries, calling into question the structural functionalist explanation of meritocracy in the U.S. Income inequality is the highest in the U.S. which is often thought of as the land of opportunity. Wealthy families from overseas are sending their children to school in the U.S. and college campuses find their populations increasingly filled with Asian and Middle Eastern students. The notion that a strong work ethic produces wealth remains strong in the U.S., despite evidence to the contrary and the poor continue to be blamed for their circumstances. Social inequality continues and is on the rise, but it is no longer sufficient to look at the inequality in one country. One must look beyond borders to a larger picture. To make sense of this new trend, classical sociological theories have needed to retool, much like the new global worker.

Terms & Concepts

American Dream: The U.S. cultural belief that anyone can become wealthy and prosperous if he or she works hard enough.

Ascribed Characteristics: Those characteristics such as race, sex, and age, which a person cannot change.

Capitalist Class: Also called Bourgeoisie, Marx's term for those who own the means of production and who achieve wealth through capital.

Class Conflict: The Marxist term for the struggle between two classes: the capitalists and the workers.

Dialectical Materialism: “Dialectical materialism posits that history progresses in stages that are based solely on ownership of the means of production: i.e., feudalism replaced aristocracy, capitalism replaced feudalism, and true socialism or communism will replace capitalism” (Dialectical materialism, 2006).

Exploitation: Utilization of workers for the gain of the capitalist, as Marx would define the term.

Income: Wages salaries, government aid, and property ownership.

Inequality: Lack of opportunity, treatment, or status.

Life Chances: The ability to have access to society's important resources such as education, health care, nutrition, housing, clothing and food.

Meritocracy: From the functionalist perspective in sociology, a system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.

Neofunctionalism: An updated version of the functionalist perspective to include a micro analysis of the social structure, rather than only a macro perspective.

Neo-Marxism: A revived interest in Marxism which addresses changes in the world economy.

Neo-Weberianism: A renewed interest in the ideas of Max Weber, particularly his discussion of the work ethic.

Power: A person's ability to achieve a goal, even when opposed by others.

Prestige: The respect a person gains from others.

Proletariat: The Marxian term for a worker, a person who works for wages.

Social Class: A system whereby persons with similar amounts of wealth, power and prestige are grouped for analysis.

Stratification: Dividing of a society into levels based on wealth, prestige, or power.

Wealth: The cumulative value of all assets including income, and property.

Bibliography

Arrewell, P. (1986). Biographical dictionary of Neo-Marxism [Book Review]. Contemporary Sociology 15 , 890-890. Retrieved August 5, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13370876&site=ehost-live

A.W.G. (1974). Toward the new objectivity. Theory & Society 1 . Retrieved August 5, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11083656&site=ehost-live

Beeghley, L. (2000). The structure of social stratification in the United States. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Camic, C. (1986). The return of the functionalists. Contemporary Sociology 15 , 692-695. Retrieved August 5, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13370893&site=ehost-live

DeNavis-Walt, C., Cleveland, R., & Webster, B. (2003). Income in the United States: 2002. U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dialectical materialism. (2006). The ism book. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from http://www.ismbook.com/dialecticalmaterialism.html

Fligstein, N. (2000). Social stratification and class. [Course notes]. Retrieved August 4, 2008 from http://www.ecsocman.edu.ru/images/pubs/2003/01/18/0000041405/fligstein.doc

Francis, D. (2007, July 23). New insights on the Soviet Union's collapse. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0723/p15s01-wmgn.html.

Kendall, D. (2007). Sociology in our times. California: Thomson Higher Education.

Neofunctionalism (sociology). (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2008 from Powerset http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Neofunctionalism_(sociology)?query=Neofunctionalism

Neo-Marxism. (n.d.). Retrieved August 4, 2008 from http://www.ismbook.com/Neo-Marxism.html

Orzechowski, S. & Sepielli, P. (2001). Net worth and asset ownership of households: 1998 and 2000. U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Rothchild, J. (1995, Jan. 30). Wealth: Static wages, except for the rich. Time Magazine, 145 , 52.

Stille, A. (2001, January 13). An old key to why countries get rich. New York Times. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/13/arts/13SUCC.html?ex=1218168000&en=ecc07ea6d3e13975&ei=5070

Wright, E. (1979). Class crisis & the state. New York: Verso.

Suggested Reading

Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Edwards, R. (1978) Contested terrain. New York: Basic Books.

Wright, E. & Martin, B. (1987). The transformation of the American class structure 1960-1980. American Journal of Sociology 93 , 1-29.