Modernity and Class Society

The relationship between modernization and the formation of class society has been explained differently by conflict theorists and functionalists. In conflict theory, Karl Marx believed that class society arose as feudalism was brought down by internal contradictions. Similar contradictions would cause capitalism to give way to communism and usher in the end of class society. Max Weber believed that capitalism and the rise of the modern class system were encouraged by the values of Protestantism. He thought the class system is efficient but that capitalism creates an "iron cage" of bureaucracy. A more recent functionalist theory, modernization theory, suggests that the Western form of class society is an inevitable result of industrial development, and that all countries that modernize will eventually look like the United States. It has been challenged by world systems theory, a conflict perspective that sees the world as having one capitalist global economy.

Keywords Calvinism; Capitalism; Citizenship; Class Consciousness; Convergence Theory; Corporatism; Dialectical Materialism; "End of Ideology"; False Consciousness; Fascism; Industrialization; Mode of Production; Predestination; Urbanization; World Systems Theory

Social Change > Modernity & Class Society

Overview

The phenomenon of modernization encompasses the processes of industrialization, specialization, secularization, the development of a class-based society, and the international division of labor. While some form of stratification has been a feature of all societies, the urbanization and industrialization that have accompanied the spread of capitalism have created new dynamics and a system of class stratification; that is, a system in which people are ranked hierarchically based on their wealth, source of income, and relationship to the means of production. Sociologists have offered competing theories about the origins of the class system, the nature of its system of stratification, the implications of its emergence as a global dynamic, and its impact on the life chances of humans who live in class societies. Many theories have explained the movement from traditional societies to modern societies, focusing on changes in culture, political structure, economic systems, and social norms. Understanding the development of class society and the relationship of class to capitalism, urbanization, and other sweeping historical changes will help sociologists better understand the changes that the global spread of capitalism and class culture are bringing to societies today.

Conflict versus Functionalist Theories

Sociologists who study macro-level data can be divided into two schools of thought. Conflict theorists believe that society is best understood as a place where groups and individuals compete for scarce resources, which can be material resources or forms of prestige and power. Functionalists think society should be understood as a well-oiled machine working toward equilibrium. Whereas conflict theorists see competition, functionalists see cooperation and adaptation. Conflict theorists believe classes have arisen in modern capitalist societies because capitalism is an economic system based on exploitation and competition. Functionalists see the class system as a system matching rewards to those who have the most merit; the class divisions of capitalism are functional for the system.

Applications

Marx & the Development of Capitalism

Karl Marx, one of the originators of conflict theory, believed that the history of humankind is the history of class struggle. He was a materialist, which means he thought that to understand a society, it was necessary to understand its material base — in other words, how it makes the goods it needs to survive. The mode of production is his term for describing the entirety of the creation of goods. He divided it into the forces of production (for example, whether people make things by hand or use machinery) and the relations of production (that is, whether people work alone or cooperate, whether people own the fruits of their labor or sell their labor to others). The material base of a society determines its superstructure — the cultural and political forms that are rooted in the mode of production (Marx, 1964).

Throughout history, as societies change, one mode of production will dominate for a time and then be replaced by another. Ancient systems gave way to the feudalism of the Middle Ages, which fell to capitalism. Marx believed that these changes occurred because each new form had an inherent flaw or internal contradictions that eventually led to its downfall and replacement by a new economic system. For example, feudalism allowed concentrations of wealth, which prepared the way for the creation of a merchant class, trade, and cooperative production, which in turn paved the way for the ascendance of the middle class and capitalism, which weakened the social stability of the feudal system and eventually destroyed its viability. Similarly, Marx thought that contradictions in capitalism based in class conflict would eventually bring capitalism down and replace it with communism. He called this process of tension, collapse, and replacement of the dialectic.

The tensions in capitalism come from the exploitation of workers for profit. Since capitalism is driven by profit motives, capitalists try to increase their profits in several ways: they compete for a share of the market by lowering the price of their goods, which would be a viable strategy if they replace labor with machines or pay lower wages. This competition drives some capitalists out of business, leading to monopolies and a concentration of wealth. The competition also makes the entire system unstable, as periods of falling profits, concentrations of wealth, and then booms alternate, with each crisis becoming worse than the previous one until the misery of the working class and the over-concentration of wealth among the few remaining capitalists leads to revolution (Marx, 1954).

Marx believed the capitalist system is primarily a relationship between two classes: workers (also called the proletariat) and owners of capital (also called the bourgeoisie or capitalists). Because workers have interests in common with other workers, and capitalists share interests with other capitalists, each group develops a class consciousness — a similar way of interpreting its interests in the world. Marx believed that in every era, the ruling class used its power to spread its ideas among lower classes; the ideas would legitimate the system of stratification and justify the capitalists' dominance. Capitalists hold power partially by convincing workers that the system of capitalism is fair, that it is in the workers' best interests to embrace the system. This identification of their interests with the interests of capitalists creates a false consciousness in the workers.

Marx thought the changes in the process of labor under modern capitalism have negative consequences for workers (exploitation and alienation from the products of their labor) and positive consequences for capitalists (higher quantities of commodities produced for the same amount of labor, leading to higher surplus values and the growth of capital). Marx thought that workers would become alienated because people realize themselves through their labor; as people create things through their labor, they also create themselves. By dividing people from the products they labored to create, the modern class system alienates people from their own creativity and essentially alienates them from themselves (Marx, 1964).

Criticisms of Marx

The most obvious criticism of Marx's theory of classes is that his predictions about the fall of capitalism and the rise of communism have not come to pass. There are many reasons why his analysis has not proven accurate, but a major one is that Marx's theories were developed in the early days of industrialization. There are many complex features of developing capitalism. For example, unionization led to improved workers' rights that control the excesses that were so evident in his day. Other important features that developed after his death include the spread of bureaucracy that Weber later analyzed. Some of Marx's ideas are dated and no longer describe the system of capitalism found in our postindustrial society—for example, the welfare state and the global world economy.

In the 1950s Marxist theory was so dormant in the West that Bell and others could propose an end of ideology theory claiming that Marx's analysis of capitalism was essentially dead; the tensions between capitalists and workers were all but resolved, and that such categories were no longer analytically useful. However, the social dislocations of the 1960s in the United States and many Western European nations showed that the old tensions still existed.

While there are flaws in Marx's theories, his basic analyses of the rise of capitalism, the material basis of society, and the dialectical process of social change have helped current understanding of class dynamics. He influenced Weber's analysis of class. While Weber disagrees with Marx's categorization and gives culture more weight, his understanding of capitalism was developed as a reaction to Marx's theories.

Finally, Lefebvre (1969) suggests that while Marx's communist revolution never happened, that in one sense Marx was correct: the monopolies of early capitalism did fall to the struggles of workers. However, the capitalist system proved more adaptable than Marx foresaw, and what fell was not the system, but a particular and unregulated version of capitalism.

Weber & Class

Weber's idea of class differs from Marx's in several ways. Weber expanded the economic determinants of class to include factors besides production. He augmented Marx's idea of social stratification by class with the concept of status group stratification, and whereas Marx visualized classes as relations between groups, Weber conceptualized classes as theoretical ideal types, useful for analysis.

Weber's concept of social classes is more easily understood in contrast with Marx's view. Whereas Marx divided people into classes based on whether they own the means of production or sell their labor to those who do, Weber thought that a person's relationship to the market rather than to the means of production (in other words, a person's income and wealth, rather than whether that person owns a business or works for someone else), is the economic distinction that should be used to group people. He also pointed out that in modern societies, people are stratified not only by class, but by status and party (what today would more accurately be called property, prestige, and power). These three systems of stratification work together, so that often a person with a high income and wealth will have a prestigious job and also hold political power (Weber, 1946).

Weber also differed from Marx in the explanation he gave for the rise of capitalism. While Marx thought that capitalism arose from the historical dialectic, Weber placed more emphasis on culture rather than class struggle as the engine of change. Weber was intrigued that capitalism appeared first in Protestant countries. He theorized that the values embraced by early Calvinism were exactly the values that would provide a proper ground for capitalism to thrive: an emphasis on hard work and saving, a conviction that material success is a sign of God's favor, and a motivating uncertainty caused by a belief in predestination. Thus, modern class society was encouraged not by economic processes, but by religion. This emphasis on culture contributing to the rise of modern class society was in direct contrast to Marx's economic determinism and dialectic materialism.

Like Marx, Weber believed that the modern class system causes problems for the people who live in it. Whereas Marx saw alienation, Weber saw a disenchantment caused by increasing rationalization and the growth of bureaucracy.Weber's concept of rationalization refers to how means-oriented and calculating a society is. The opposite of this idea of rationality isn't irrationality (senselessness) but non-rationality, indulgence in activity that is an end in itself, done for pleasure (McIntyre, 2006). Bureaucracies are organizations that are impersonal, ends-oriented, hierarchical, run according to fixed rules, and with a specialized division of labor. While he thought that there are benefits to bureaucracies, such as their efficiency and predictability, he did think that a society dominated by the form could become full of people so caught up in following bureaucratic red tape that they forgot the ends for which the organizations were created (Weber, 1946). This disenchantment leads to what Weber called an "iron cage." Capitalism evolved because early Protestants had a religious calling to work hard; modern individuals lacked the calling but still lived in the system that had evolved under these values, working without any moral purpose and without enjoyment (Weber, 1930).

Weber's conception of class was developed after Marx's and therefore could take into account aspects of modern society that Marx did not live to witness (the growth of bureaucracy, increased class complexity, and so on). Marxist conflict theorists sometimes criticize Weber for his emphasis on culture, and historians have slighted his use of sociology to explain historical trends (Robertson, 1933). However, so many of his predictions have been accurate that he does not attract the level of the criticism that Marx receives.

Viewpoints

Modernization Theory

Modernization theory, a form of convergence theory popularized by W. W. Rostow in the 1960s, shaped American foreign policy at the time. A reaction to 1950s Cold War pressures to explain and justify capitalism, modernization theory argues that capitalist culture as it exists in the United States and Western Europe is the inevitable outcome of progress, urbanization, and industrialization. It claims that as the nations of the Third World also develop economically, they will follow the same path as the United States and Western Europe, and end up with similar economic and social structures. The secularization, high level of education, technological advances, gender roles, nuclear families, separation of public and private spheres, mobility, higher standard of living, specialization, bureaucratization, and consumer culture are seen as inescapable but also as advantageous.

There are many assumptions embedded in this idea: that the transition from traditional agrarian societies to modern capitalism is inevitable, that it constitutes desirable forward progress, and that cultural innovations, technology, and values will diffuse around the globe, making this change possible (Farley, 2003; Giddens, Duneier, & Appelbaum, 2005). Certainly proponents of modernization can point to some of the changes that have accompanied modern class society, such as the concept of citizenship with its civil, social, and political rights, as factors leading to a higher quality of life and social and political stability.

Criticisms of Modernization Theory

There are many criticisms of modernization theory: that it is ethnocentric, based only on the steps that Western societies went through during their transition to modernity; that it assumes that modernity benefits all societies equally; that it overemphasis the modern nation-state, treats the nation in isolation, and neglects global dynamics; and that it is ahistorical (Bach, 1982). Others criticize its unquestioning support of modern capitalism, which was spread through the exploitive practices of imperialism and colonialism. The assumption that capitalist nations will automatically form stable democratic governments was called into question by the corporatist governments of Italy and Germany during the Second World War, both of which displayed capitalism merged with the totalitarian state.

Dependency theorists and world systems theorists also claim that the basic premise of modernization theory — that participation in the global system of capitalism will lead to improving incomes for poorer countries—is wrong, and data from developing nations does support this criticism. While it was influential in forming American foreign policy in the 1960s, as a social scientific tool modernization theory has largely been eclipsed by world-systems theory.

World-Systems Theory

Created by I. Wallerstein, world systems theory argues that the world is dominated by a single capitalist economy. The division of labor that used to take place within a factory instead follows a commodity chain around the world. The world is divided into core nations that are wealthy, powerful, and industrialized, and peripheral nations that are less powerful, underdeveloped, and at a disadvantage in the global system of trade. Class dynamics have been displaced from humans and onto the regions of the world. In a global system of capitalism, conditions of the different classes will vary considerably from region to region; it is thus difficult to make statements about the class consciousness of workers and the like. Hopkins (1982) points out, however, that with the rise of multinational corporations comes the development of a truly global capitalist class. The shifting of labor around the globe also suggests the creation of a global laboring class.

Activists around the world have found world systems theory useful in explaining the dominance of such entities as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank. The existence of such powerful organizations comprised of many member nations offers support that there is a global economy. At the same time, traditional conflict and functionalist theories are useful for illuminating the dynamics of class relations within nations.

Terms & Concepts

Calvinism: An early branch of Protestantism that originally believed in predestination, hard work, sobriety, and thrift; material success was seen as a sign of God's favor.

Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, economic activity is geared toward profit, and economic activity is regulated by the market's supply and demand.

Citizenship: Full membership in society. In the modern nation-state, citizenship leads to political, social, and civil rights.

Class Consciousness: A shared awareness of interests developed among workers and among capitalists, based on their similar relationships to the means of production.

Convergence Theory: The argument that industrialization and modernization follow predictable paths so that nations that undergo the process will end up similar, no matter what form they took initially.

Corporatism: A system in which power is divided between various corporate groups such as corporations, voluntary associations, unions, and the state, and individuals participate in the political process only through their membership in these organizations, not through direct involvement with the government.

Dialectical Materialism: Marx's theory of historical change. Each society contains tensions arising from contradictions in its material (economic) structure that will eventually bring it down; a new synthesis will arise that solves the contradictions of the old system. The new synthesis will eventually become the starting point for a new set of contradictions.

End of Ideology: Theory popular in the 1950s and associated with D. Bell and S. M. Lipsett, which claims that developments in latter-day capitalism such as widespread political involvement, democracy, and the expansion of the social safety net will bring an end to the class conflict between workers and capitalists, and the political right and left.

Fascism: Used to describe both a form of government and an ideology, fascism prioritizes the state, embraces authoritarian rule, rejects communism, democracy, and liberalism, and supports a corporatist, nationalistic, totalitarian state.

False Consciousness: In Marx's theory, the belief of the workers that their interests are the same as the interests of the ruling class.

Industrialization: The shift to a society characterized by machine-manufactured goods.

Mode of Production: Combination of the forces of production and the relations of production — that is, how goods are manufactured, and the ownership and power relations governing production.

Predestination: In some forms of Calvinism, the belief that one's eternal fate is determined before birth: one is either saved or damned.

Urbanization: An increase in the percentage of people living in cities.

World Systems Theory: Most associated with I. Wallerstein, this theory argues that there is one capitalist global economy.

Bibliography

Alpermann, B. (2011). Class, citizenship, and individualization in China’s modernization. Protosociology: An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 28, 7–24. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71703315&site=ehost-live

Bach, R.L. (1982). On the holism of a word-system perspective. In T. K. Hopkins and I. Wallerstein, (Eds.) World-systems analysis: Theory and methodology (pp. 159–180). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Collins, R. & Makowsky, M. (1993). The discovery of society ( 5th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Coser, L. A. (1971). Masters of sociological thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Farley, J. E (2003). Sociology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gerhards, J., Hans, S., & Mutz, M. (2013). Social class and cultural consumption: The impact of modernisation in a comparative European perspective. Comparative Sociology, 12 , 160–183. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87308512&site=ehost-live

Giddens, A., Duneier, M. & Appelbaum, R. (2005). Introduction to sociology (5th ed). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Hopkins, T. K. (1982). Notes on class analysis and the world-system. In T.K. Hopkins and I. Wallerstein, (Eds.) World-systems analysis: Theory and methodology (pp. 83–89). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Lefebvre, H. (1969). The sociology of Marx. New York: Vintage Books.

Marx, K. (1954). The Communist Manifesto (S. Moore, Trans.). Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.

Marx, K. (1964). The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 (D. J. Struik, Ed.; M. Milligan, Trans.). New York: International Publishers.

Marx, K. (1993). The eighteenth brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In C. Lemert, (Ed.), Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (pp. 48–56). Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.

McIntyre, L. J. (2006). The practical skeptic: Core concepts in sociology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Robertson, H. M. (1933). Aspects of the rise of economic individualism: A criticism of Max Weber and his school. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, V. H. (2011). Max Weber in light of East Asian development. Max Weber Studies, 11, 13–34. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=66338006&site=ehost-live

Singh, Y. (2012). Modernization and its contradictions: Contemporary social changes in India. Polish Sociological Review, , 151–166. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78045451&site=ehost-live

Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Routledge.

Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.; T. Parsons, Ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Suggested Reading

Engels, F. (1972). The origin of the family, private property and the state. New York: International Publishers.

Heiskala, R. (2011). From modernity through postmodernity to reflexive modernization. Did we learn anything?. International Review of Sociology, 21, 3–19. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=59702983&site=ehost-live

López, A. R., & Weinstein, B. (2012). The making of the middle class: Toward a transnational history of the middle class. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Marx, K. (1906). Capital (F. Engles, Ed.; S. Moore and E. Aveling, Trans.). New York: The Modern Library.

Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society (revised new century ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.