Micro And Macro Analysis Of Social Theory Of Herbert Marcuse Essay

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher (1588-1697), is well known for his great political notions and thoughts, and deservedly so. His main concern is the problem of social and political order. In “introduction”, Hobbes was depicted to believe that the entire phenomena in the universe, including human nature was to be explained in aspects of material bodies. According to him, soul and mind were not separate from the body as other writers believed. Human beings are essential machines. Their aspects and emotions operate pertaining to the physical part of the law, as well as chains of cause, impacts, action and reaction. As machines, human beings pursue their own self- interest avoiding pain at all cost and pursuing pleasure. Society is a similar machine, greater than the human body, as well as artificial (temporary) but operating as stipulated by the laws governing motions, as well as collision.

social theories. Additionally, he illustrates how these variety of perspectives typically structure the sociological theories as a whole in which we perceive them in society today. One of the most important and critical perspectives addressed by Peter Kivisto can be seen in chapter three of his book. In this chapter, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Kivisto expresses the battle and disagreement between two very distinct main classes within the class structure of capitalist. Kivisto, with the help of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is able to identify such dissimilar and contrasting classes. These two classes involved the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Here, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels not only analyzed the discrepancies amongst the two conflicting classes, but the affectedness they had on alienation, low pay, and economic exploitation as well. Additionally, Marx and Engels elaborated in favor of the bourgeoisie due to the fact that they have constructed an assertive, creative, and extraordinarily beneficial economic system that is adequate for establishing the fundamentals for an insufficient society.

Suppose one day you were told you no longer needed to go to work, you could provide enough food for your family, and your health was taken care of--would you do it? Although we may think we want to live in this kind of world, utopian societies are misleading: similar to the society's observed in “The Machine Stops” by E.M. Forster and The Allegory of the Cave by Plato. No doubt, the natural intention of human beings is to be virtuous and moral. Ironically however, striving to live in a utopia consequentially is harmful for mankind. Those who strive to live in a perfect world are obligated to surrender their freedom and frame of mind. Therefore, the intention of this paper is to analyze Plato and Forster's approach about the consequences of what happens when a rational agent allows something other than itself to take control over it, and how this can eventually dehumanize humanity.

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

He said that competition forces people to establish ties with one another in a web of affiliation, and in groups, conflict increases the degree of social solidarity within each group and at the same time, decreases the level of tolerance for deviance.

"Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (Jean-Jacques Rousseau). Each human is conceived great, however society debases them. This thought is otherwise called noble savagery. Society is a defiling power. A man in nature is a happy man and his thoughts are broadly known and reflected in numerous works of present day reasoning.

The general theme that surrounds the ‘Social Action’ approach is the rejection of the idea that society is seen to be a well oiled mechanism that influences individuals to behaviour in a pre-defined manner, though it cannot be denied that a ‘social structure’ does exist, but Weber and various other social action theorists, argue that its whole existence, that is society, stems directly from the interventions of the individuals that are at the root of this structure. In adopting this viewpoint, Weber believed that sociologist should focus their attentions on the comprehension of individual human behavioural patterns, in order to uncover a meaning (Haralambos et al. 2004). It was in his 1920s publication ‘Economy and Society’ that Weber

Frye believes her analysis of oppression disbars men as a group from suffering from it. Oppression is an ‘enclosing structure’ (Frye 1983, 10). Individual acts are therefore

As human beings, we think of a society as a place where people usually interact with each other to share a common belief, culture, thought, and way of living. However, within each society, there is always a conflict that leads to the understanding of social changes. Karl Marx, one of the main authors of the Communist Manifesto—written in 1848 in a revolutionary time with the thought that it happened to make changes towards

The relationship between the individual and his/her society is a subject of continual interest not only to philosophers and religious thinkers. We, as individuals, have hopes, plans, needs, and expectations. Likewise, society has its own, which present itself in the form of laws, traditions, and needs for the greater good. Often, these needs and demands of the individual come in conflict with those of society, and this raises problems for both. Due to the

“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.

The sociological imagination raises three core questions. Firstly, what is the structure of the society being studied? Secondly, what relevance does its context in history have? And thirdly, how does it influence and shape those within it? (Mills, 1959: 6-7). The consideration of these questions enables the greatest understanding of the relationship between society and an individual’s position and circumstance, and is what makes the concept sociological.

There are many of sociology's founding figures that have extremely well-built ideas, practices and studies that I could explore, but one renowned philosopher stands out amongst the crowd, and that person is named Karl Marx (1818-1883). In this essay I aim to explore and critically assess his ideas, theories, and studies in his contribution to sociology, and if his ideas, theories and studies are useful to this contribution to sociology.

As poststructuralism would have it, human consciousness is constructed discursively. Our subjectivity is constructed by the shifting discourses of power which endlessly speak through us, situating us here and there in particular positions and relations. In these terms we are not the authors of ourselves. We do not construct our identities, we have it written for us; the subject cannot be sovereign over the construction of selfhood. Instead the subject is decentered, in that its consciousness is always being constructed from positions outside of itself. It follows then that the individual is not a transparent representation of the self but an effect of discourse. Spivak argues that surprisingly for these figures, when Foucault and Deleuze talks about oppressed groups such as the working classes they fall back into precisely these uncritical notions of ‘sovereign subjects’ by restoring to them a fully centred consciousness. In addition they also assume that the writing of intellectuals such as themselves can serve as a transparent medium through which the voices of the oppressed can be represented. The intellectual is cast as a reliable mediator for the voices of the oppressed, a mothpiece through which the oppressed can clearly speak.

Herbert Marcuse, a Frankfurt philosopher, wrote his book One-Dimensional Man in the 1960’s during at the height of the Cold War. The book One Dimensional Man was both influential and highly critical of modern industrial capitalism and as Marcuse believed, its subsequent exploitation of people and nature, as well as its contribution to modern consumer culture and new forms of social control. One Dimensional Man offers an analysis of the new state of consumerism during the 1960’s through a critical lens. This essay will focus on One Dimensional Man as I explore his view that technological development, alienated labour and consumerism have distorted affluent societies in creating false needs as well as perpetuating unfairness through various