Regardless of how an opinion is formed, it identifies one’s belief and influences a person’s point of view. All human beings form opinions that shape their self identity and influence our society. These opinions are developed throughout one’s lifetime based on factors from outside influences; these influences may be from a continuum of negative or positive personal experiences, social interactions or social class. While a person’s opinion may change many times over the course of a lifetime it will always be theirs. It is who they are, it is their identity. Opinions that are influenced from negative and positive personal experiences tend to be more guarded and vested than those formed through social interactions or social class. Whether someone was raised in a strict family or a carefree family it would suggest that they may be more likely to hold the opinion of strict is good or carefree is good. However this is not always the case. A person may view their upbringing as a bad one and choose to rebel against the social skills learned in their home and form …show more content…
The wealthy may look down on the less fortunate as second class citizens. They may support a capitalist political platform that protects their personal interests and increases personal revenue. The poor may look at the wealthy as a social class that never had to work to earn a day’s pay. This may influence their opinion to support political platforms that promote sharing of the wealth, government subsidies or the promotion of workers unions. According to (Berberoglu) “The development of class consciousness among the working class is not an automatic process, but it is nonetheless a direct outcome of the conditions of work and life experienced by millions of workers under capitalism. This process, once fully developed, draws workers into the class struggle—a struggle which is political in nature and is waged against the ruling capitalist class”
Everyone one has an opinion, especially when it comes to society,
Opinion: “Opinions are intensely personal, so it is understandable that people have strong feelings about theirs. (Ruggiero, 2010, p.34). Your opinion may not be the truth but for an individual it is a personal view and not any one else’s.
Marx (1959) divides class structure into three categories, these being the ‘worker, the capitalist and the rentier’. With each category living in similar milieu; sending their children to similar schools, they are therefore taking ownership of their class; therefore, Marx suggests movement between classes is difficult. Marx (1959: p16).
Every society is structured or designed with the intention to form social classes; classes that will determine the social mobility of each individual living within it. Within the social hierarchy, there is inevitably one class that essentially oppresses the others. The Communist Manifesto features The Bourgeoisie and The Proletarians, and explains that the relationship between the two classes is a common frictional relationship that has occurred countless times throughout history. It explains that the modern Bourgeoisie will eventually fall, due to their inability to maintain a lifestyle for the proletarians; which is ultimately caused by the instability of capitalism.
One component of this idea is a social mobility. Social mobility is the movement of individuals or families within layers of social stratification. For example, if some family of first generation of immigrants (who are usually considered as low-income families) will work hard and get some college education, they probably can improve their social-economic status and move upward direction to the lower-middle class or even to the middle class level. However, to move from the low-income class status upward to the upper class status will be very difficult or even impossible for this family. As was written above, only 1-3% of American population is in the upper or upper-upper classes and this is like “private club” for the rest of population. The membership of this “club” is difficult to earn; many members of this upper class group received their statuses from their parents or grandparents and this looks like a “cast” of privileged people. This privilege gives many advantages and influence in political, educational, religious and other institutions. These advantages make upper class as a dominate group and underprivileged lower classes as subordinate group; and this stratification is describing classism. Carol Brantley and her colleagues (2003) state that “Classism is the systematic oppression of subordinated groups (people without endowed or acquired economic power, social influence, and privilege) who work for wages for dominant group (those who have access to control of the necessary resources by which other people make their living).” Classism says that upper class members are more educated and smarter than low-income and working classes’ members because they and their children can afford very expensive or exclusive education worldwide. Whereas, oppressed groups are lacking this opportunity to get prestige
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.
Most societies throughout history and the world have developed a notion of social class. It is refers to hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups within society. How these social classes have been determined has been a common topic among social scientists throughout time. Two individuals who have headed this long standing debate are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In this paper I will be summarizing Marx and Weber’s theories on social class; how they are determined, their interests, and problems that may exist among groups. I will then provide my own critiques of their arguments.
The inequality that is present between these two classes is unbelievable throughout the book that even parts of the wealthy class begin to realize the damage that their right wing government has caused to the lower division of Chile. Even Esteban Trueba’s immediate family senses the problems that the poor face. “[Clara] now took Blanca with her on her visits to the poor, weighed down with gifts and comfort. ‘This is to assuage our conscience, darling,’ she would explain to Blanca. ‘But it doesn 't help the poor. They don 't need charity, they need justice’” (136). Because of this unequal treatment of the classes and the resentment that the poor held for the wealthy, the two classes could not continue to co-exist. The incessant struggle that the lower class faced when the wealthy controlled everything forced them to begin a revolution so that they can finally take control of their own lives instead of living to please the wealthy.
To start of my essay I will compare and contrast between the two theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber on the topic of social class that will be discussed widely. The inequality between people is the basis of the democratic system, which is “a political system”. It is said that “those who have the skills and abilities to perform and produce will succeed in life.” But this belief is the assumption that all people are given equal opportunities and advantages. During the 19th century Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists who developed their own theories about why inequality is maintained with social class in society. Many might argue that there are many similarities and differences between these sociologists theories, however although Marx’s and Weber’s both examined similar ideas. This essay will compare the differences and similarities between Marx and Weber’s theories of class within society, which are based on economic inequality and capitalism. And lastly this essay will demonstrate that Max Weber comes across as the greater theorist as he can relate his concept more towards today’s society. Anthony Giddens (2nd edition) quoted that “You need greater equality to achieve more social mobility.” Therefore social class is referred to a group of people with similar levels of wealth, influences, behaviours and status. Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) American Politician states that the “ignorant classes are the dangerous classes.”
Our identity is comprised of inner qualities and outer representations of self. It consists of innumerable defining characteristics that make up the whole of who we are in any given moment. These fragments of self include our sexuality, gender, and sense of belonging to a particular culture, nation, religion, family, or some other group. Our identity includes our looks, personality, beliefs and fears. Each individual in society assigns themselves a particular role, whether it be as a mother, brother, retiree, performer, sportsman or as a part of their occupation, a doctor or lawyer. Often one’s entire sense of self is consumed by
Karl Marx describes “Society as a whole [as being] more and more [split] up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Marx 124). As Marx made his distinction between upper class, bourgeoisie, and lower class, proletariats, it is important to keep in mind the societal structure at the time. To understand how classes were created and the disparity between the rich and poor, or, bourgeoisie and proletariat, it is necessary to examine how people came to be rich and poor. Exploring a time before money existed will help us to process and understand reasons why the binary between rich and poor exists and how it is reflective of low and high art distinctions.
I wish to convey to the reader that although the opinions of others can impact the shaping of our identities, there are other factors that also make a contribution. I chose these 3 topics to talk about because of their relevance to the topic of
‘Every form of society has been on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes…The modern labourer instead of rising with the process of industry, he becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. Here it becomes evident that thy bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society…Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, and it’s existence is no longer compatible with society…’ (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party 1847)
Culture is one of the major influences on our lives and social interactions; culture is associated with our characteristics of religion, societal norms of behavior; moreover, culture is always changing and the influence increases. With every religion there are traditions and cultures that are a form of art as it involves many characteristics’ of individuals and their beliefs, values, and perspective, for this reason, there are various dynamics in terms of how culture is involved and the influence of our actions, such as media, peers, family, and socializations. Culture is a factor of social environment and what is modeled to us in our early years of development.
The Communist Manifesto discusses class and class struggle as a vital part of the capitalist system. Marx and Engels state that class is made up of people who are in the same position in relation to the ownership and control of the means of wealth production.(cite) For Marx and Engels the class struggle between the upper class, or bourgeoisie class and the working class, or the proletariat class is the epitome of modern social change. Marx identified three classes: wage for labor, profit for the capitalist and rent for the landowner (Knox, 1988: 160). Since capitalism succeeded in absorbing the landlord class, which left society with only two social classes: capitalists and workers. The Marxist theory of class is opposed by those people who explain class not in terms of ownership or lack of ownership, but in terms of prestige and