Jean Claude Passeron, Max Weber And Karl Marx

The Sociological Explanations for Class Inequality There is much debate in sociology about whether class is still important. Many argue that class is no longer important as an individual's identity and life chances are based more status and cultural factors such as lifestyle, values, intelligence, education and the like, the post-modernists state that class has ceased to be the prime determinant of identity and suggest that societies are now organised around consumption rather than production, consequently people now identify themselves in terms of what they consume rather than in terms of social-class position. Class identity has therefore fragmented into numerous separate and individualised

Karl Marx and Max Weber were influential sociologists that paved the way for modern sociological school of thought. Both, Karl Marx and Max Weber contributed a lot to the study and foundation of sociology. Without their contributions sociology would not be as prominent as it is today. From the contribution of how sociology should be studied, to how they applied their theories to everyday life has influenced many sociologists. Predominantly, both of these theorists’ discussed the effects of capitalism, how it has developed, shaped and changed society into what it is today. Specifically, Karl Marx’s contribution of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class and Max Weber’s social stratification has helped individuals to understand how modern day society has transformed into what it is today. Particularly, this paper will lie out Weber’s theory of social stratification and Marx’s theory of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class; additionally this essay will also compare and contrast the ideas of these two influential sociologists. Finally this essay will criticize both of these sociologists’ theories and display that Marx and Weber do not explain how modern day society and classes have been formed.

and subsequent reinvestment of capital, is an end that both Weber and Marx reach in their analyses of society and agree on in definition. However, while Marx tells us that phantoms of the brain i.e. morality, religion, ideology, cannot develop independently of material production or influence it, Weber argues that ideas and religion can indeed determine life and the processes of life, namely our material production. The key difference between the two is their scope of factors that can cause historical development. Marx only allows for one factor, productive forces and the economic conditions resulting from them; Weber, on the other hand, acknowledges that while ideology and religion can support the economic relations as a driving factor, they can also develop independently and become a factor, a force on its own that can alter production, economic conditions, and thus history. By accounting for the multiple ways in which a society can be altered, Weber provides a more complete and applicable understanding of historical development and the powerful concept that an idea from an individual or group of individuals can have a legitimate and significant effect on the direction of society.

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.

The concept of social class has been around for ages and is still a part of today’s society. Social class is not only based on the individual’s wealth but also on their social standing such as; monarchs, priests, nobles, merchants, and peasant class. The peasant class was practically ignored, which means that the higher classes would only pay attention to each other. This can be the case in society today, there are some people who feel that their career makes them higher than a janitor. Even though humans have been around for centuries, social class is still a big issue.

Christopher Doob wrote the first edition of Social Inequality and Social stratification in US Society. The author structures this book in the direction towards a theoretical concept that attracts the reality of social inequality and stratification as a whole. Doob dissects this books into eleven chapters given that each chapter examines the inequality of stratification. Also during the readings of this book Doob used plenty of data to show the socioeconomic strata revolved around the history of America. In relation to this book the assigned four readings in class “Class A guide through the American Status System, Class

The axis of inequality that will be focused throughout this paper is the social class. Social class is defined as a group of individuals who are categorized according to class (i.e. poor, middle, and upper) due to their income, wealth, power, and occupation. Social class is socially constructed by the way we view how much income and wealth a person possess (Ore, 20011a, 10). In reality it is much more than that. According to the text, poverty is not only the shortage of income, but it is the rejection of opportunities and choices that leads a person to a standard way of living (Ore, 2011a, 10). Stereotyping also contributes to it being socially constructed. These stereotypes influence us by defining who is who based on their principles in each class category. This can cause some to feel worthless.

Bourdieu argues that although “snob” (Peterson, Kern. Oct, 1996, Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore, pg.900-907, published by American Sociological Association) tends to be assimilated into “omnivore” (Peterson, Kern. Oct, 1996, Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore, pg.900-907, published by American Sociological Association), people can still see the boundary between two classes because it is easy to go downward, but going upward is always facing difficulty. It illustrates that upper class people can enter lower class culture easily, however, lower class people are having difficulty to engage with upper class culture because from upper class position, they have enough money to spend in lower class culture. In contrast, lower class people still do not have enough money to spend like upper class people although they can access into the upper class culture. For instance, beer is not considered as an expensive beverage as compared to the upper class usually drink, however people who only afford to buy beer are not affordable to buy such as champagnes as many as they consume

A lot of the inequalities that are produced are in social classes. According to Lareau, the middle class is

Sociologists study it to contextualise and quantify social relations and divisions. Therefore, they study class, and what constitutes and contributes to one’s class, and how this has changed over time and has transitioned from an almost entirely economic system of stratification to one that encompasses economic as well as the social and cultural capital a person holds. Moreover, sociologists study class to understand its impacts on a systematic basis, as well as an individual one. Class as a system of social stratification is useful to sociologists to help them understand how the divisions between classes impact society, as explored through the way in which classes vote and the conflict they have between each other. Additionally, sociologists study class to gain an insight into the way in which class affects people personally, and their own social experience of class, through their day to day life and the culture they consume. Therefore, sociologist study class because it is an ever-present part of our lives and our society which must be

Though Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville differ, they both contributed greatly to revolutionary concepts of their era. To better understand the analyses between politics, social, and economic changes Marx and Tocqueville discuss, we must first understand the shift of their time and the need for sociological analysis. The 19th century was a time of change and adaptation for everyone and few scholars were capable and willing to understand the impacts these changes would have on society and its entities. Both industrial and democratic revolutions affected their times and created shifts in society. The industrialization affected many aspects of society. It created a structural change in the economy shifting from agrarian income to industrial and commercial income. Technology impacted labour force and production shifting to large-scale manufacturing creating new types of investments. These changes affected class structure, migration, and workers which in turn affected economy and a shift in politics.

Sociology is fluid in the way in which theories become less central to sociological thinking as time progresses. The theory of social class in particular was very prominent throughout the 1950’s-1970’s where social class divisions were seen as central to understanding differences in opportunity and life chances. Social class has been defined as ‘ a division of a society based on social and economic status.’ (1) These theories of social class were developed and studied by the likes of Marx, Weber and Durkheim. The theory of class has been subject to some criticism however since it fails to explain other forms of inequality such as race, gender and sexuality. Although there have been many attempts to link these inequalities to social class, no such connection has been found and other theoretical approaches have been needed from the likes of Andrew Pilkington, Kathwood Woodward and

Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital has been extremely influential, and has garnered a great deal of literature, both theoretical and empirical. Like Marx, Bourdieu posited that capital was the foundation of social life and dictated people’s position within the social hierarchy (Bourdieu 1986). According to Bourdieu, the more capital one possesses, the more prestigious a position one occupies in social life (Bourdieu 1986). In addition to that, Bourdieu extended Marx’s idea of capital beyond the economic and into cultural symbolism (Bourdieu 1986). Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital that refers to the collection of symbolic elements (e.g. skills, tastes, clothing) one acquires through being part of a particular social niche and his concept of habitus that refers to the physical manifestation of cultural capital owned by individuals due to life experiences are his major influential concepts that are very useful in deconstructing power in development and social change processes. However it must be recognized that these concepts also propagate social inequalities at the same time. This essay will closely examine his concepts of capital that comes in three forms - embodied, objectified, and institutionalised, and habitus in the fields of education and stratification have made of it. Bourdieu’s work will be analysed in the context both of the debate on class inequalities in educational attainment and of class reproduction in advanced capitalist societies.

Karl Marx and Marx Weber The latter part of the nineteenth century was teeming with evolved

In the 18th century, European society put an emphasis on social standing; each social class was expected to act differently, thus affecting the way one would get treated and the amount of opportunities available to them. In Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, food imagery and the way each character acts towards food reveals the distinctions between the various social classes and, more importantly, the mediocrity of the French bourgeoisie. However, Flaubert chooses not to focus on all of the social classes, but solely on the characteristics and mannerisms surrounding the middle and the high classes. Revolving the novel around middle-classed characters who represent the middle class, Flaubert criticizes the bourgeoisie through their desire to escape